Sunday, June 19, 2005

Holt, Matayo Spokesman, Contend over SB206

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).

65 Comments:

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Debate was in the air at a recent meeting dedicated to Cross Cultural Republican women. The meeting was held in a large private residence.

Paul Graham, a spokesman for State Rep. Doug Matayo, challenged State Senator Jim Holt of Springdale. Senate bill 206, sponsored by Holt, would have made it illegal for the state to spend any public assistance money on illegal aliens, except for that mandated by federal law. The bill was locked up in committee, and in a strategic move to keep it alive in a future session, Holt got it tabled for study. The bill has drawn the ire of those who want to spend more public monies on illegal aliens, including Governor Mike Huckabee.

Graham claimed that the bill was worthless because Holt could not name one state program that would be effected by the bill, except for government sponsored pre-natal care. "Since I am pro-life" Graham said,"I support the program. I want the babies to be born healthy."

Graham also claimed that he had asked Holt months ago what other programs would be effected by SB 206, and that Holt had no answer.

Holt vigourously denied that Graham had asked him that. "When did you do it Paul, show me the Fax, or the Email, or the phone log." It turns out that Graham had asked him the question as a caller on a radio talk show.

Holt said that when a similar law was passed in Arizona, over 50 state programs that had been handing public monies to illegal aliens were effected. Because of the large number of programs that expend tax dollars providing benefits, would be difficult to know the exact number of programs affected in Arkansas until the law was passed. At that point department heads would be tasked with complying with the law.

Off the top of his head, Holt listed Housing Assistance, After School Programs, and the School Breakfast Program as programs that would be effected.

Holt took exceptional umbrage to the Graham claim that supporting government "pre-natal care" was a "pro-life" position. "There are only seven states that have pre-natal care programs," Holt said, "Are the other 43 states not pro-life?"

I am not sure what a government pre-natal care program involves, but to this writer it sounds like a very expensive way to distrubute vitamins that one could buy at Wal-Mart.; 9:51 AM, June 19, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: I wonder how did women ever manage to have babies before Arkansas started a government 'pre-natal care' program? Holt and his wife Bobye have eight children. His friends Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have 15. Did they rely on this government program? Did your mother?

Unless it does stuff I don't get right now, I don't think this should even be a program for citizens, much less illegals.

The school breakfast program is anohter rip-off. I have seen the junk they serve. It bothers me that some parents are so irresponsible that they need the government to feed their children. The food they serve is awful, don't anyone think that a child is getting a good breakfast because they are in this program.; 9:56 AM, June 19, 2005
terrymcdermott said...: I agree 100%, My daughter is an after school program at Bentonville. Last year I went to visit her on a weekday, and school had ended. All the kids were sitting around the tables being served cheese pizza. And believe me those small peices of pizza looked disgusting. When Anna saw me she threw it into the waste basket, and said she wanted something good to eat.; 11:53 AM, June 19, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark Martin said:
It bothers me that some parents are so irresponsible that they need the government to feed their children.
I say:
This is the 64 dollar question. Why can't Bubba feed his yard apes.

Mark Martin said:
The food they serve is awful, don't anyone think that a child is getting a good breakfast because they are in this program
I say:
That good food comes to you courtesy of the agriculture department of the United States.
What dietician in their right mind would recommend that stuff.; 4:35 PM, June 19, 2005
Anonymous said...: when did mark martin get pulled into this? don't you mean mark MOORE.; 6:16 PM, June 19, 2005
Anonymous said...: To clear up the record, I was asked by Rep. Doug Matayo to speak about why I would vote for him. I stated at the beginning that these are my opinions and you need to ask him if he shares the same views. I listed his experience at getting things done.

1) Merger of Health Department and Human ServicesHB2431 ACT1954 -- AN ACT TO MERGE THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INTO THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

2) Drivers license bill to make it harder for illegals to get id HB2539 ACT2210 -- THE DRIVER'S LICENSE SECURITY AND MODERNIZATION ACT

3) Adoption Streamlining (a Pro-life Bill) HB2790 ACT1685 -- THE STREAMLINE ADOPTION ACT

4) And that he filed only one GIF bill (which was to put more money into school facilities)

And pointed out that I thought SB206 was a fraud and smoke screen. I want to correct Mark on a few things though. Since he was not present and got his information second hand, Mr. Holt never said “show me the Fax, or the Email, or the phone log." If he had I would have reminded him why I did not call, fax or email him. You can ask him why I would not call him.

Mr. Holt said the statements were spin coming out of the Governors Office; he did not list the programs below.

“Off the top of his head”, Holt listed Housing Assistance, After School Programs, and the School Breakfast Program as programs that would be affected.

However if he did say it (this happened a week ago and I don’t have a perfect memory), it just proves my point since these are all FEDERAL PROGRAMS and would not be affected by SB206.

As far as pre-natal care goes, the majority of Pregnant Arkansas Women use it although they may have private insurance to cover the bill. Most people don’t share your view that it is just a “very expensive way to distrubute vitamins that one could buy at Wal-Mart.”—most people go to the doctor to make sure the baby is healthy. Being Pro-Life I believe that we need to protect the most innocent among us that being the unborn. You may disagree with my beliefs if you wish and I will not say that you are; 7:18 PM, June 19, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Welcome to the board Paul. I am glad to have your side of it.

Just to be clear, Holt did not claim he listed those programs at the event, he just listed them to me when I asked him, "Well, what programs WOULD SB 206 cover?"

Holt did say he asked you when you wanted that information from him. You can tell us all yourself right here why you won't call him.

I believe SB 206 only exempted MANDATORY federal programs, not discretionary federal programs that are administered and partly funded through the state. I think that is why Holt lists those programs as fair game under his bill. I believe that these were three programs in Arizona that were affected once prop. 200 was enacted by a vote of the people.

In your last paragraph you are mixing PRE-NATAL CARE, which I am all for, to a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to provide pre-natal care, which I am against. It is not my view that PRE-NATAL CARE is "just a very expensive way to distribute vitamins", but rather the state's TAXPAYER FUNDED PROGRAM that fits that description.

This would be a perfect example of a chairity that could and should be privately funded, but not every good idea should be a government program. Tell me how your position on this issue would differ from that of Hillary Clinton.

And I don't take issue with Matayo's legislative record on the whole, after all Holt was a co-sponsor of some of those bills, including ACT 2210. His support for HB 1525 does grate on me. I was not for the GIF increase either, but overall I think he has a respectable record.

Again, it is good to have you hear. I think your presence can make it a better blog.; 8:23 PM, June 19, 2005
Anonymous said...: Sigh! There are so many issues here that it is difficult to know where to start.

Issue #1:
I still have yet to see this question answered: “What state program would be changed by SB206, except for prenatal care?” Mark Moore seemed to suggest that there are some ‘discretionary’ federal programs that would be affected. I would like to know more about those programs and how many state dollars go to them.

I have another question about SB206: Why did Mr. Holt wait around to the last minute to actually bring his bill before the committee? I think he filed it very early in the session, but then just sit on it for a very long time. His best shot at passing it was when all that other very conservative legislation was being passed early in the session.

Issue #2:
The question that keeps going back and forth: “Why would Paul Graham not call Jim Holt?” I bet I know: Anyone that has ever confronted Jim Holt privately tells me that you had better do it in the company of about 100 witnesses, because when he retells the story you can guess who the saint is and who the sinner is. Furthermore, it is said that the content he recounts always seems to be clouded in spin and prevarication.

Here are some good examples:

Holt said on “Arkansas Tonight” that some in the Northwest Arkansas media wrongly reported he didn't plan to oppose the Sam’s Club alcohol permit application this time around. This appears to be not true. Jim Holt is not the victim of misreporting; he is a victim of conveniently forgetting that he made those statements to the press and others with multiple witnesses present.

When speaking about the Senate leadership race, Holt initially said that he would not disclose who he voted for. Rumors abound that he has claimed to some that he voted for Critcher because he said, “He is more conservative than Bisbee.” Reports back to me say that he claimed just the opposite at several Republican county committee meetings. Which is it? Did he vote for the more conservative, or did he shuck his convictions and vote for the Republican? At the very least, did he break his vow not to disclose who he voted for in the secret ballot?

It is claimed that at the Cross Cultural Republican Women meeting that Jim Holt said, “When did you do it, Paul? Show me the fax, or the email, or the phone log.” Mr. Graham has now disputed that was said. What is the truth? Surely there were multiple witnesses that could verify the facts. If I were Mr. Graham, I probably wouldn’t privately confront Mr. Holt either. Nonetheless, there seems to be something more going on between those two, since neither is willing to blink on why Graham won’t call Holt. All in good time I suppose, it is bound to come out. All the good conspiracies always do, meanwhile I can’t wait to hear the two sides to that story.

Add to all this the fact that Mr. Holt has a host of other ethical problems; the van that was given to him, his Little Rock housing arrangements, and a multitude of others that are not currently in the public domain or I have not been able to verify with collaborating sources. It seems that Mr. Holt has a problem with the truth ...

Issue #3
Concerning SB206 and HB1525: I think both Holt and Matayo agree on the incorrectness of socialism and I hope that both would do what they can to fight it. I see both of these bills as failures in the battle against socialist philosophy. They both allow the primary issue, socialism, to be clouded by a secondary issue which is immigration. I think Mr. Holt is right that giving state aid to illegal aliens is wrong, but he fails to recognize that the primary issue is socialist policy. By allowing a secondary issue to become primary, he stupidly handled the issue without demonstrating Christian compassion. He predestined himself to lose, which is what I think he really wanted in the first place. If he had passed the bill, then he would not have had an issue to demagogue in his next election. So, first Mr. Holt mishandled what might have been (I have my doubts) a pretty good bill, then second he sit on it all session and did not run it until it was too late. Contrast that to how Mr. Matayo handled his driver’s license bill. He refused to let the bill become a debate about illegal immigrants, he emphasized that it was about correcting a problem that endangered homeland security. Given the current FBI investigation, he was right and handled it perfectly. The bill passed.

Although I don’t think he was alluding to Jim Holt, Skinner Lane wrote this in his blog (http://www.skinnerlayne.com):

Christian Evangelist and Apologist Ravi Zacharias has said, I think quite correctly, "A conviction, ungirded by love, will make the possessor of it obnoxious and the dogma he possesses repulsive." The Scriptures tell us "Now abideth faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love," and that "He who loves another has fulfilled the law." With all that is going on in the so-called "culture war," it is time for those of us who are conservative and more important, Christian, to do a gut check and re-examine our approach. Is our political philosophy and is our political advocacy undergirded by love or ungirded by it? Are we reaching out to the people who have fallen victim to the destructive Existentialist philosophy that plagues our nation, or are we standing up like Pharisees and prounouncing judgment and casting the first stone? Jesus did not tell the adulteress "Thou art damned," he said "Go and sin no more." He showed loving compassion to those in spiritual need. It was the Pharisees pronouncing judgment. Christ was the only one who had a right to judge, and yet He did not. Does this mean we should approve of sin? No. But "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not manifested with hateful speech and vitriolic rhetoric.

Wow, that describes Jim Holt to a “T”. I should probably know who Skinner Layne is, but I don’t. With references to Ravi Zacharias, J.P. Moreland, and William Lane Craig though, I am pretty sure that I am going to like the kid. Wonder if he’d let me buy him a beer?

Anyway, this sychophantic mindset that believes that Mr. Holt is as pure as the wind driven snow perplexes me. I believe he would be fine politically if he would just come clean on this stuff, but with all the smoke swirling around him I can only assume that there is fire nearby.

Sincerely,

The Anonymous Coward; 11:55 PM, June 19, 2005
Anonymous said...: Well said coward!; 5:05 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: AC, I can help clear up some of your "issues".

Issue 1 - Holt told me one reason he waited so late to push SB 206 was a tactical response to HB 1525.

About every bill has a rider at the end that says any law that conflicts with it is overturned by the new law. Had HB 1525 passed, SB 206 would have overridden it, had it been made law afterward.

Frankly, I thought he waited too late to push several of his bills and that he could have been better organized, but when a man is being attacked in the media constantly, it is a distraction. You feel compelled to spend time responding.

Issue #2

I have confronted Jim Holt privately, and have not found what you claim to be the case. As far as your claims of "spin" and "prevariation" go- you are just wrong. I have never met a more honest man that Jim Holt. Not one man.

His vote is his own and he has no obligation to say who he voted for- that is why there is a secret ballot.

As for the "e-mail, fax or phone" issue, he did not tell me that he said that to Graham at the event, only that he asked him.

Mr. Holt does not have a problem with the truth, but some of his critics do. It is precisly BECAUSE he won't bend his convictions that some oppose him.

I am not sure about his housing arrangements, but I can testify that the van was no great gift. It only looks decent now because of the hundreds of man hours of work and dollars they spent on it. Holt spent eight days he should have been campainging against Blanche fixing the ruined transmission on that thing. And the transmission was just one of the probleims. The insides were filthy. His son had to spend days if not weeks restoring it. That was not the sort of thing one gives as a bribe. Holt should have charged them for hauling it off.

Issue #3.

HB 1525 IS socialistic, in that it increases the size and scope of government handouts. Matayo pushed it and Holt was a leading force in stopping it. Holt co-sponsored the driver's license bill. I have doubts about that bill because of the big government (I read SOCIALISTIC) aspects of the federal government dictating to the states what their drivers licenses have to look like. Can someone show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government has the authority to do that?

That bill was sold as a bill that would make it harder for illegal aliens to get licenses, but it was really about increasing federal government power and keeping better track of all of us. If Matayo was really concerned about illegal immigration, then why didn't he come out for SB 206? He does not want them to have a driver's license but he does want them to have taxpayer funded scholarships? Obviously, his license bill had another purpose besides making it harder to be an illegal alien in Arkansas.

The reason SB 206 did not pass had more to do with the number of cowards and frauds in the ledge who did not want to face media heat than it did with anything Holt did wrong. It is clear what the citizens of this state want, and it is clear that the Democrat-Gazette wants the opposite. Guess who most of the ledge chose to serve?

As for the part about Holt being unChristlike because he insists people follow the law, it is just stupid. It makes Christ into a Barny-like one dimensonial cardboard-cutout instead of the complex being and Son of God that He is.

He DID judge the adultress when He said "Go and SIN no more". In the modern mindset, Jesus would have STILL been wrong for "being judgemental" and "unloving" and "unchristian" for declaring to this woman that what she had done was a sin! And for daring to tell her how to live her life when she said, "Go and sin no more".

He is the same one that drove the money changers from the temple with a whip, and overturned their tables. He is the same one that will one day trod on the grapes of wrath until the blood is as deep as a horse's bridle. Don't pick and choose which side of Christ you will love and which you won't. He is BOTH Lord and Savior. He is BOTH King and Priest. As Savior and Priest, He shows Mercy, as Lord and King, Justice. They are both Him. Either love Him or deny Him, but don't take only one trait of His nature and love that only.

When CHristians are serving in government, it is their duty to be just. To show mercy to the guilty is to be unmerciful to the innocent. As individuals, it is our duty to be merciful and loving. Jim would disagree. He would say that the government should be merciful too- along with being just.

The "hate the sin but love the sinner business" is turning into a fraud for gutless people who don't really hate the sin. Not do they love the sinner, for if they did they would speak out more strongly against the sin that corrupts them. They use it as an excuse because to think otherwise would obligate them to action.

You can't find ONE example of hateful speech or vitriolic rhetoric coming from Jim Holt's mouth. Not one! Yet you claim such a description "fits him to a "T"".

You keep insisting Holt "come clean", why don't you take your own advice. Give us an example of Holt's "Hateful and vitrolic speech" or be man enough to apologize for slandering him.

Where there is smoke, there is fire, but it is people like yourself that are setting it as a smokescreen, not Holt. I await your examples or your apology.; 7:43 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Over SB 206: Well, I can't say most of the ledge chose to serve the Demozette rather than their constituients, because the bill never got out of senate committee. I guess I must narrow my claim to the members of the Senate State Agencies Committee, to be fair and accurate.; 7:52 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: The thing that was so wrong with Matayo's support for HB 1525 is that the illegals are already getting state scholarships and in state tuition. Nowhere on the application form does it ask for SSN # or proof of legal status. All it asks for is residency information. So you could be illegally residing in Rogers and the state would never know and give you the scholarship. This bill would have simply made the state an accomplice in the illegal behavior. The only reason to run it or support it was pandering.; 7:58 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark Moore wrote:

When CHristians are serving in government, it is their duty to be just. To show mercy to the guilty is to be unmerciful to the innocent. As individuals, it is our duty to be merciful and loving. Jim would disagree. He would say that the government should be merciful too- along with being just.

Explain to me just how it is that children of illegal immigrants are guilty of anything?

As long as we have a socialistic system here in the U.S., we are compelled by Leviticus 19:33-34 to give them the same benefits.

I have been told that HB1525 does not GIVE scholarships to those children. It simply makes the eligible to COMPETE for the scholarship. I find it amazing that so many people believe their own children are not smart enough or disciplined enough to be able to compete with children that have only been speaking english for a few years.

I really don't know why I keep wasting my time. Those of you who follow Jim Holt would never admit or see that he is not what he pretends to be.

Mark Moore said:
I have never met a more honest man that Jim Holt. Not one man.

Obviously you have not met Jim Bob Duggar. Of course, I guess since he voted for a tax increase because it was the lesser of two evils, then you would consider him a sellout too. Jim Holt is not half the man of his friend Jim Bob Duggar, period.

There is a large number of legislators that are far more honest and sincere than Jim Holt, and they don't go about acting like such a holier-than-thou super Christian. Two examples: Johnny Key and Sid Rosenbaum.

Jim Holt has been hatefully and ignorantly called a "Shite Republican". That is just wrong. But I do think it is fair to call him a "Pharisee Republican".

I will answer more of your questions later. There is too much to deal with in just one post.

Sincerely,

The Anonymous Coward; 9:11 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: I am not saying we need to send them to prison, just send them back home. Send them to the counrty of origin so they can go to the end of the line of immigration applicants that their parents cut in. And certainly don't attract more with free tax money.

If they are in college they are not children! They are adults who violate Federal Law if they take money they are not entitled to.

Even children can be guilty of trespassing and home invasion. We don't punish them the same as adults, but it is still wrong.

Would you admit that the parents are guilty? If so, do you think that a parent who breaks into someone's home and takes money should be allowed to keep it if they spend it on their children? Is theft justified if the cause is "for the children"? Bureaucrats have used that line to separate me from my money way too often.

Jim Bob Duggar is a great guy too. He is another one of those "you have never met a more honest man" guys. I hope he runs for Holt's senate seat. If the GOP establishment is too stupid to embrace him, the Constitution Party would love to have him as its candidate I am sure.

The Pharisees were the enemies of Christ. Calling someone a Pharisee Republican is no less an insult than calling them a Shiite Republican. How is it any less an insult?; 9:51 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: And on this SAM's club liquor business I want to set the record straight. Holt never changed his position. His position was that the law said alcohol had to be sold in a separate facility. His objection was that SAMs wanted to house it in the same building. They wanted special rules, because they were Wal-Mart I guess.

When Holt beat them at the ABC board meeting ( I was there) they changed their mind and said they would put it in a separate building. Holt then said he would withdraw his opposition because there would no longer be any legal grounds for it.

After that SAMs decided they would just go down to Fayetteville and try to put the alcohol with the groceries. Holt said if they want to do that, then I am still opposed.

I have to admire Holt for standing up to the most powerful business in the state and telling them "the same rules that apply to the little guy also apply to you". He stuck to his guns when no other "representative" would. I can not express how much I admired him for not backing down to such a powerful interest. No other candidate I have seen can match that kind of principle. Yet we cannot sustain a civilized society unless there are men like Holt who insisit on this principle: Same rules for strong or weak.; 9:58 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: My memory of that whole mess with Graham and Holt is that their rift came out of the Hudson/Holt State Senate primary when, in a public grandstanding effort (Graham acted honorably), Holt accused Graham of something he didn't do (the Press report later indicated Holt's admission that Graham indeed did not do what Holt accused him of) which ended up with Graham getting legal advice from an attorney who told him not to communicate with Holt under any circumstances without multiple witnesses present.

Based on my memory of that whole situation, it shows that Graham is no dummy and continues to follow the advice of his attorney. Good plan, in my opinion.; 9:58 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Or maybe he did do whatever it was Holt accused him of.

The press may or may not have reported it, and their reports may or may not be accurate.

All we have is an anonymous source speculating on what they may recall an unreliable newspaper reporting.

Some of you people make me sick. Why can't you put your name on this garbage?; 11:07 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Why are we sooooooo concerned about making things easier for the illegals? Shouldn't we be following the requirements of our immigration laws, and be concerned about making the illegals legal FIRST by putting a check on our borders, send the illegals back home, and then have these people who want to come here file for the proper paperwork to be here LEGALLY?! There are many others who are waiting in the line to obtain their legal status, and I think giving the Mexican illegals (be it their children or grandchildren) the socialistic handouts without solving the root cause of them being here illegal in the first place is absolutely senseless and TOTALLY UNFAIR!! Why shouldn't the illegal Mexicans have to go through the same immigration process that everybody else has to? Just so that we can get some cheap tomatoes?

I must be losing my mind, because I just can't seem to understand the logic of the "Compassionate Conservatives" or "Compassionate Republicans" regarding this illegal immgration issue! If they are so concerned about the welfare of these illegals, why, they should help these people out as INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS and from THEIR OWN POCKET -- not my hard-earned money. It is ALWAYS easier to spend OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, isn't it?!

These legislators seem to forget where the money they so compassionately spend on the illegals came from in the first place. I thought they are supposed to be on a lookout for the legal residents of Arkansas. I think they are just pandering in order to not be perceived as a rebel (i.e. Jim Holt and the likes), and thus able to garner blessings from the party people to win their re-elections or elections for higher office -- just my cynical speculation.; 11:10 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: anonymous coward,

I am curious as to whom you can find in the Arkansas Senate that are "more honest and sincere than Jim Holt". The two examples you have given are House Representatives.; 11:19 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark Moore said

"Holt co-sponsored the driver's license bill."

This is not a true Statement.

Rep Matayo was the only sponsor on the bill. I know that Sen. Altus carried the bill in the Senate.

I will not respond to why I will not call, fax or email Mr. Holt; 11:21 AM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark Moore said

"Or maybe he did do whatever it was Holt accused him of.

The press may or may not have reported it, and their reports may or may not be accurate.”

I will state that Anonymous of 9:58am pretty much summed it up well. I will not engage in conversation with Mr. Holt with out witness’s base on advice of my attorney.; 11:32 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Leviticus 19? I am glad that you bring the Bible into this. Not everyone who quotes the Bible is seeking the truth, for even Satan quoted the Bible, but the Bible is the place where you can find truth if that is what you are using it for.

There is no doubt that we are to be kind to the aliens that dwell among us.

When you consider the whole of the Old Testament Law, the Stranger or Temporary resident that one was to treat as a native born was obligated to keep all of the Law, including the religious observances. Read Lev. 18:26 and many others. Because of that, the modern counterpart to the Temporary Resident in Leviticus 19 is the children of LEGAL ALIENS.; 11:46 AM, June 20, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: If he didn't co-sponsor it I am glad.; 12:08 PM, June 20, 2005
Anonymous said...: And so begins the self-righteous holier-than-thou "Cult of Holt" attack dogs.

Here are few of the creeds of the "Cult of Holt":

1) Jim Holt and his Constitutional Party misfits have an infallible ability to interpret the Bible. Any other understanding of the Bible, even if supported by 2000 years of orthodoxy, is simply wrong.

2) Except for Jesus, Jim Holt is the only man on the planet that has lived the perfectly sinless life.

3) It doesn't matter that every single Republican legislator in the Arkansas House and Senate does not support Jim Holt, they are all wrong. Only Jim Holt knows the right way and everyone else is wrong.

4) It doesn't matter if you change your position when you find out that Jim Holt didn't co-sponsor a bill like you claimed earlier that he had. You know that if Jim Holt sponsors a bill then it is good, if he does not sponsor a bill it is bad ... even if he votes for it. But it doesn't matter that Jim Holt voted for it because if he voted for it then voting for it must be good.

4) If a person gives Jim Holt a van valued at “greater than $9750.00” (self-reported value), he does not have to disclose whom gave it to him even when he admits himself that the ethics commission said he had to disclose the source of the donation.

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=News&storyid=16144
http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/cgi-bin/arkimg/?F132925+0

5) If Jim Holt receives a gift from you that he himself values at “greater than $9750.00”, you should be aware that a nearly $10,000.00 gift given to Jim Holt is really a piece of junk. Shut up and ride your motorcycle to work, tell everyone you know that your $10,000 van is a piece of junk and be happy that Mr. Holt over-reported the value of your gift so you could perpetrate fraud upon the IRS.

6) If Jim Holt tells one group that he voted for one person for Senate Pro Tempore, but then later to another group he tells the exact opposite, he has not been caught in a lie. Your hearing must have been afflicted by demons because Jim Holt cannot lie.

7) If Jim Holt agrees and votes to keep the Senate Pro Tempore election secret, he is not being childish but every other senator that did so was. If Jim Holt breaks his word, he really hasn’t broken his word. Jim Holt cannot break promises.

8) If Jim Holt takes state money for per diem during the session, but then gets rent free lodging, he has not received a gift that should be reported. You can be sure that Mr. Holt will fully refund the taxpayers his per diem or pay the full rental value of his Little Rock residence. If not, it doesn’t matter because as stated before, if Jim Holt did it then it must be right.

9) If any person ever disagrees with Jim Holt on anything, you are obliged as a member of the “Cult of Holt” to zealously attack the worm for being hateful, judgmental, and slanderous. The outrage! How could anyone question the integrity of a supreme angelic being like Jim Holt?

10) If Jim Holt makes statements at a public event that are in dispute, it is childish to attempt to solicit knowledge about who is telling the truth. Jim Holt cannot lie.

11) You as a member of the “Cult of Holt” may impugn the salvation of any critic of Jim Holt with as many ad hominem attacks are necessary. You need not worry about being hypocritical about hatefully, judgmentally, and slanderously calling critics of Jim Holt “hateful, judgmental, and slanderous” because you (and Jim Holt) are right, everyone else is wrong. So it is written.

12) It is not possible for anyone to righteously oppose Jim Holt because to do so violates the first law of the “Cult of Holt” – Those who oppose Jim Holt art now and forevermore shall be unrighteous and unclean.

13) God forbid that a member of the “Cult of Holt” ever break free of the cult and criticize the master. Any such action will result in eternal damnation and immediate accusation of being a liberal, socialist, fag-loving yard ape.; 2:16 AM, June 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: Come on preach it coward!; 6:32 AM, June 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: Toast said

"The so-called ‘dilemma’ over Little Rock housing arrangements consists of laughable charges cooked up by none other than Paul Graham and Doug Matayo themselves! It was supposed to be the well planned scandal that handed Holt’s Representative race over to a buddy of Graham's and Matayo's, Ralph Hudson (by the way, Jim skunked him). ."

I have posted under my real name MR. Toast I ask you to do the same thing. It is easy to distort the facts when their no danger of retaliation. These are slanderous remarks and are not true. I went to Mr. Holt as a friend to tell him what the FOI request where for. Unlike many who post here I don't believe a person should be falsely accuse without being confronted if the information is false then you point that out. Mr. Holt is the one who made the situation public when he made his decision. He was quoted in the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas that I was a friend and came and a friendly manner. So you can call me anything you want however I ask that you do it under your real name.

Again I repeat the statement from MR TOAST is untrue.

what flavor is that KOOL-AID; 9:14 AM, June 21, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: JP P Graham,

He phrased it in a way that made your actions seem unsavory, but I do not see where Toast called you any names. Anyway, I am not here to cast disperions on you. I do not know what went down that day. It is not even the point.

Whether you went as a false friend or a true one, the housing accusation against Holt proved groundless. Yet here is a hysterical Anyonomous Coward ranting about a cult and bringing up the same groundles charges that have already been addressed. I can picture the spittle flying from his lips as he rages.

If the ethics commision had thought the situation was out of bounds, they would have already sanctioned Holt. I am sure of that.

Before I go on I want to correct a mis-statement of fact I made. Holt was NOT a co-sponsor of the Driver's License bill. I am glad of that since the bill's real purpose went way beyond it's stated one. Still, he did vote for it. I disagree with Holt's vote on that, but I can see why he did it.

The other thing was that I was not talking about the same van AC was talking about. I had no idea he was dragging that dead horse out of the grave to beat on it some more. Once again, if the ethics commision had wanted to sanction Jim I guess they could have done it. He gave the van away to a family in need at any rate. Good grief, Holt has been in several campaings since that blob of mud was hurled. If it did not stick then why hurl it again now.

I want you and AC- who formerly presented himself as the voice of Christain reason before the mask slipped off and he assumed his duties as "accuser of the brethren", to really consider if this is how you want Matayo to win it.

It is well known that Jim Holt considerd running for Governor. He now has the name ID and stature to seriously challenge for Governor.

Instead, he decided not to be pushy. He decided that Win and Asa were senior. He is accused of everything, and one thing he is accused of is not being a "team player". He is a team player, but he is on Jesus Christ's team, not the Republican Party of Arkansas' Team. That bothers some of the RP of A team members. But on this occasion, he made what amounted to a team decision. A decision to be patient. A decision not to over-reach.

I want you two to think long and hard about this. You have spent almost all of your time here trying to drag down Jim Holt instead of trying to talk up your own guy (Matayo). Is that how you want to win it? Is that how Matayo wants you to act?

If you think that you have to drag down Holt for your guy to win, then it is probably because you know your guy is over-reaching. Your guy is pushing ahead in line- which Jim Holt declined to do in the Governor's race.

I have not been on these threads bad-mouthing Matayo. Rather I have been talking up my guy (Holt). I don't HAVE to tear someone else down for my guy to win it, because he is already the candidate with the most political stature in the race.

I have taken issue with specific things that Matayo has done, but overall I have been mildly complementary. I have said more than once he has a respectable record for a two-term state rep.. Still, of the two, Holt is in the better position, is better known, and has more support state wide.

More people have voted for Jim Holt than have voted for Mark Pryor, despite being outspent 60-1. That is on top of the 70% of the vote he got in a three way GOP primary not two years ago. Compared to that, the number of people who have already punched a chad for a guy named Matayo is miniscule.

Do you think that Matayo is over-reaching to jump from two term state rep. to Lt. Governor. Shouldn't he try for State Senator first (the LT. Gov. is president of the Senate)? Or at least he could take his lumps as Holt did and make a state-wide near suicide run against an incumbant Democrat. If he exceeds expectations in that race, even if he loses, he pays his dues and gains in stature. That is what Holt achieved.

Has Matayo really paid his dues tp the extent Holt has? Has he been as patient as Holt? Is he over-reaching?

Ask yourself (and Doug Matayo) if you really want this nomination by hurling tons of used mud at Holt in the hopes that it might stick the second time around. Ask yourself (and Matayo) if you want it by diminishing others instead of building up your guy.

If you don't think you can win clean, if your guy does not think he can win on his own merits, then maybe you should do your souls a favor and not run.

I am serious. Look at what you are becoming, especially you AC. Think of how twisted you will be with nine months of this. And if you succeed in assinnating Holt's character, you will have to carry that around for the rest of your life.; 7:39 PM, June 21, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Thank you momoftwo. I feel strongly about it, enough so that I want to repeat part of it....

I want JP Graham and AC- who formerly presented himself as the voice of Christain reason before the mask slipped off and he assumed his duties as "accuser of the brethren", to really consider if this is how you want Matayo to win it.

I want you two to think long and hard about this. You have spent almost all of your time here trying to drag down Jim Holt instead of trying to talk up your own guy (Matayo). Is that how you want to win it? Is that how Matayo wants you to act?

If you think that you have to drag down Holt for your guy to win, then it is probably because you know your guy is over-reaching. Your guy is pushing ahead in line- which Jim Holt declined to do in the Governor's race.

I have not been on these threads bad-mouthing Matayo. Rather I have been talking up my guy (Holt). I don't HAVE to tear someone else down for my guy to win it, because he is already the candidate with the most political stature in the race.

I have taken issue with specific things that Matayo has done, but overall I have been mildly complementary. I have said more than once he has a respectable record for a two-term state rep.. Still, of the two, Holt is in the better position, is better known, and has more support state wide.

More people have voted for Jim Holt than have voted for Mark Pryor, despite being outspent 60-1. That is on top of the 70% of the vote he got in a three way GOP primary not two years ago. Compared to that, the number of people who have already punched a chad for a guy named Matayo is miniscule.

Do you think that Matayo is over-reaching to jump from two term state rep. to Lt. Governor. Shouldn't he try for State Senator first (the LT. Gov. is president of the Senate)? Or at least he could take his lumps as Holt did and make a state-wide near suicide run against an incumbant Democrat. If he exceeds expectations in that race, even if he loses, he pays his dues and gains in stature. That is what Holt achieved.

Has Matayo really paid his dues tp the extent Holt has? Has he been as patient as Holt? Is he over-reaching?

Ask yourself (and Doug Matayo) if you really want this nomination by hurling tons of used mud at Holt in the hopes that it might stick the second time around. Ask yourself (and Matayo) if you want it by diminishing others instead of building up your guy.

If you don't think you can win clean, if your guy does not think he can win on his own merits, then maybe you should do your souls a favor and not run.

I am serious. Look at what you are becoming, especially you AC. Think of how twisted you will be with nine months of this. And if you succeed in assinnating Holt's character, you will have to carry that around for the rest of your life.; 8:19 PM, June 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: The responses above make my point exactly about the “Cult of Holt.” They do not want to apply the same standards to themselves as they foist upon their adversaries. They seek to attempt appeal to the Christian conscience of their opposition while demonstrating no Christian conscience at all about using the exact same tactics.

That double standard silenced me once on this blog. I was conflicted and convicted about harshly treating a Christian brother. In fact, it still grieves my heart that it is necessary to do so. It is with much prayer and reflection that I have come to the conclusion that I must do what I have been doing. The rhetorical language of flying spittle is colorful, but it simply is not the truth. Tears, a tight heart, and a knotted stomach are a more apt picture.

From a biblical perspective, it is interesting that when Christ drove the money-changers from the temple He was cleansing the temple. In other words, He was driving sinfulness out of the “church”. When Jesus used harsh language, it was always directed at the Pharisees. To the best of my knowledge, the harshest of Christ’s words were reserved for the self righteous and were rarely if ever directed at the pagans of His time.

Rather than follow the biblical pattern set forth by our Lord for righteous anger against self righteousness and a Pharisaic mentality, the Cult of Holt throws pearls before swine by condemning an already condemned world. I have attempted, and likely have failed on many levels, to follow Jesus’ pattern of attacking self righteousness and Pharisaical Christianity. I know that I will never achieve that perfect standard and I know that I will not conduct myself as Christ would, but my eye is upon Him and I strive to become more like my Savior every day.; 11:48 PM, June 21, 2005
Anonymous said...: Now, let’s attempt to point-counterpoint some statements made in the above posts:

Mr. Toast keeps demanding that I provide proof and references to the stuff I post. Debbie Pelley and David Barton are the only people that I know of that provides that level of referencing and cross referencing. I don’t take myself that seriously, nor should you. Come on! We are anonymous cowards posting hearsay on a blog for goodness sake! Regardless, when the hearsay is proven wrong (as mark moore has occasionally done) or the point is conceded (as mark moore has also occasionally done), I move on. I deal with it, I cope, or I gloat. I like to gloat; Rush Limbaugh has nothing on me for the ability to gloat.

mark moore said …
“the housing accusation against Holt proved groundless”

I have no idea about the past housing accusations that went on among Jim Holt and Paul Graham. I don’t know what that is about, but it doesn’t seem Holt learned anything from that controversy a few years ago. I am referring to an entirely new problem. It seems that Holt lived rent free during the last (2005) legislative session. If that is true, then he had better list it on his disclosure forms that he has to file with the ethics commission. This is why hard fought primaries are good, stuff like this needs to come out now while there is still time to file with the ethics commission. My source for this information is from an insider democrat operative that, luckily, is too stupid to keep his mouth shut. They were planning to keep this all a secret until Holt missed the ethics filing deadlines.

mark moore said …
“If the ethics commision had thought the situation was out of bounds, they would have already sanctioned Holt. I am sure of that.”

It is my understanding that the ethics commission will only take action against a legislator if someone files a complaint. They neither have the desire nor the resources to investigate everything the legislators do. If they did, the size of the state government would need to increase by 50%. Perhaps I am wrong.

mark moore said …
“Before I go on I want to correct a mis-statement of fact I made.”

Mark, you have provided some exceptional spin on the Driver’s License bill. I loved it! But I am not sure you are correct about your opposition of it. I believe that bill corrects weaknesses in Arkansas laws at the state level and was irrelevant to the fact that something was going to be shoved down our throats from the federal level. In fact, the bill proves that we can take care of our own problems without Federal over-reach of authority. Anyway, great of you to correct a mis-statement.

mark moore said …
“The other thing was that I was not talking about the same van AC was talking about.”

Do I understand that you are saying that Jim Holt has had two vans given to him? Hmmm… See above about the ethics commission.

mr. toast said...
“That the church member who gave Jim a vehicle is a tax cheat who used the gift as a means to offset his tax liability with the IRS”

I was not accusing anyone of cheating the IRS. I was trying to make a humorous tongue-in-cheek statement at the coarseness of declaring some poor guys gift to be a piece of junk and what the “Cult of Holt” might have said to him. My goodness, the guy gave up his only source of dry transportation so that Jim Holt could transport his family, how inconsiderate was it to declare his “two-mite” gift to be a piece of junk? I guess my hyperbole could legitimately be interpreted overly literally, for THAT I will apologize.

Mr. Toast, I have to admit, your creativity with personal insults is refined to an absolutely hilarious art form. I envy your talents.

[The forked-tongued toady named the anonymous coward hops (or is it slithers?) away to dream up some equally juicy slander. He wonders out loud if “forked-tongued toady” is a cooler moniker than “the anonymous coward.”]

mark moore said …
“I want you and AC- who formerly presented himself as the voice of Christain reason before the mask slipped off and he assumed his duties as "accuser of the brethren", to really consider if this is how you want Matayo to win it.”

I believe I already explained my position as it related to being an “accuser of the brethren.” What if the hearsay that is rampant like wildfire in Republican circles is really true? Isn’t it better that this stuff comes out now, rather than becoming an October surprise? Besides, is there some inherent reason why we should not criticize Holt? Is there something special about him that makes him above reproach?

Honestly, at this point in the race I care less about who wins the primary than I care about who loses the primary. My order of preference is like this: First choice is narrowly Matayo over Calhoun. LaGrone would have been my next choice, followed by Jim Holt with Chuck Banks bringing up the rear. Holt is not even my last choice. Go Holt! Beat Chuck Banks!

”Has Matayo really paid his dues tp the extent Holt has?”

I have never liked the union seniority mentality of “paying one’s dues” for nothing more than the sake of “paying dues.” I prefer to select the more able leader, the more accomplished businessman, the more accomplished legislator. I have always hated it when someone at my company got a promotion over a superior worker because he “paid his dues.” Besides if never holding your office more than one term before running for a higher office is “paying your dues”, then you have a very messed up grading scale. Add that to the fact that Mr. Matayo has recruited candidates to run for office for everything from city council and school board seats to state representative seats, then worked his butt off to raise money for them, do door to door for them, teach them how to run an effective campaign, and generally encourage them even when he knew that there was little chance of them winning. That, my friend, is paying your dues. Can you name one elected official at any level that will tell you that Jim Holt was instrumental in getting them elected? Nonetheless, I will try to get around to posting positive comments about Mr. Matayo (if you look back, I have done so in the past) rather than always busting Jim Holts chops. But dang, everybody loves dirty laundry. The rumor mills and hearsay circles never have positive things about candidates.

”Look at what you are becoming, especially you AC. Think of how twisted you will be with nine months of this. And if you succeed in assinnating Holt's character, you will have to carry that around for the rest of your life.”

Only Jim Holt can assassinate his own character. I do nothing but post the hearsay and rumors that are already out there. I never make up things out of the thin blue sky. Furthermore, I don’t put my posts on the blogs where there are no Jim Holt defenders present. I almost always bring the tidbits that I pick up here where his most staunch defenders are present to correct the record if need be. I’m a nobody to Jim Holt, I would never be able to approach him directly with these topics, so I do the next best thing.; 1:36 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Jim is a member of an unusual sect of Christianity. He follows the teachings of Bill Gothard. Gothard has a messianic complex. He believes that he receives special "rhemas" from God that give him and his followers true spiritual insight.

Gothard teaches that Rock and Roll music is addictive and demonic. (including Christian Rock) He says that the use of any type of birth control is a sin. (Hence Jim’s 8 children and Jim Bob's 16) Gothard believes in arranged marriages. He tells the story of Isaac and Rebecca as an example of how men and women should meet, court, and marry. He believes it is a sin to watch T.V. or movies. And, he also teaches that it is a sin to have any financial debt. i.e. You cannot take a loan to purchase a home.

If you know all of this about his religion then it helps to explain his “know it all” approach. Gothard teaches that individuals that live by his principles will have a special dispensation of wisdom granted to them. Jim believes, honestly, that God has given him a greater understanding of life than “non- followers” because of his “Godly” lifestyle.

You will never get anywhere criticizing Jim if you are not a part of his religious group. It does not matter what your arguments are, you do not understand because God has not spoken to you.

If you don’t like Jim Holt my advice would be to leave him alone. You will not be able to dissuade from anything.; 8:55 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Didn't Jim get that van from a widow with a bunch of kids? In the Good Book it says that true religion is taking care of widows and orphans. Is taking charity from widows and orphans true religion?; 10:04 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: bible believer -- please, no more "rumors" or "hearsay" for personal attack or an attempt to villify a person's integrity. At least, substantiate your "latest bit of juicy information".; 10:31 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: It is not a rumor. A widow from Gentry drove the Conversion Van that Jim now owns. She is a member of the same religious group that Jim belongs to.

Please, someone if you know Jim confirm this story.; 10:43 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Whoa! Hold on! Just to be clear, my little "Cult of Holt" deal was in no way implying that Jim Holt's religion is a cult. I was drawing the analogy to the "political cult" (not religious) that mindlessly follows the "cult of personality" of Jim Holt.

I did alittle research on the web to learn more about Bill Gothard, recommend that everyone Google him and learn something before making judgements about him from these posts.

While "Gothardism" may be peculiar and at times perhaps somewhat unorthodox, I would not consider it a cult. Please, let's not start busting on his denomination. And please, please, do not interpret my earlier post as accusing Jim Holt as being in a religions cult. I was using hyperbole to demonstrate that he is the LEADER of a POLITICAL cult.; 11:24 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: There really does seem to be a religious bigotry in the Republican party of Arkansas these days.; 11:49 AM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: This Gothard guy is weird.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/i13.html

http://www.pfo.org/evol-fad.htm; 12:27 PM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Lay off people religious beliefs.

AC and JP never said anything about religion.

JP never attacks Holt he disagreed with a position. Then he was attacked for not stating why he would not talk to Holt.

If you read JP's post he said.

“I went to Mr. Holt as a friend to tell him what the FOI request where for. Unlike many who post here I don't believe a person should be falsely accuse without being confronted, if the information is false then you point that out. Mr. Holt is the one who made the situation public"

Sound like he was trying to protect Senator Holt to me.

VOTE JIM HOLT but don’t distort the truth or cast dispersions on others for stating their beliefs.

By the way that is Washington County JP Paul Graham's Post. I talked to him last night and I asked if he posted he said "yes I did."

He also stated he was trying to keep the peace between two people he considered Friends and now wishes this would go away he was the only one hurt (and he was just trying to help keep it quite if it was not true); 12:43 PM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark Moore---

I have enjoyed your BLOG in the Past and have recommended it to other for reading.

I have disagreed with Mr. Holt on his position of SB206. I have never stated he did anything unethical and would not do so. All I did was state that my attorneys said don’t have a conversation without witnesses present. I did not bring up any of this garbage from the past. I was trying to be a peacemaker in that situation because we need to elect conservative leaders to our Govt.

I will criticize his record just I would expect of my own record on the QC. Stating a record is a fair way to run a campaign. However, personnel attacks are not proper and should be avoided.

There have been post here that have claiming I have been Mud slinging Please go back and read them I think you will see I have stuck to issue's and I apologize about the Kool-Aid comment.

Since it appears this attempt at honest Dialogue has been intervened by those that want to call names. I wish you well and hope that God Bless each and everyone of you; 2:19 PM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Senior Citizen for Holt,

I believe you are confused. A couple of years ago An ethics complaint was filed against Jim Holt because of a gift he recieved. The gift was an early 90's green and white conversion van. It was quite a nice vechicle. It had a T.V. VRC and numerous luxury items. When his filled out the finacial statements his office requires of him he listed the gift as, "A gift from God".

The Ethics Commision didn't find this explanation to be sufficent and told him to disclose the source of his gift. To this point, he has not done so. The source of the gift was a widow from Gentry. This is a fact. Jim will not dispute this. If you don't believe me ask him next time you see him.

He will not release the name of the widow who gave him the van because it would be embarresing to tell the whole State that he took charity from a widow will several children to feed. Jim hasn't done anything criminal in this whole ordeal. He has just demonstrated poor judgement. I love Jim he is a Christian brother, but this action was wrong. We need for Jim to make this right. Please don't take my word for it. Ask Jim personally about this episode. He needs to talk with people who have his best interest at heart.; 4:48 PM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Senior,

I am not talking about the blue van that Jim drove earlier this year. I am talking about the Discovery conversion van that he drove prior to his run for U.S. Senate. I think your age has impacted your memory. You should have that checked out.; 8:40 PM, June 22, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: JP Paul Graham,

OK, you are within your rights to point out that you are not the Anonymous Coward and cannot be held responsible for his invective.

In the heat of battle it seemed like you operated as a tag-team but perhaps you two don't even know each other, in which case I should not have lumped you two together.; 10:15 PM, June 22, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: TO ALL;

Jim Holt is the most examined political figure in this state. In the last race, the media went over his life with a fine-toothed comb. He gave them full access to his records. A reporterette went through HIS HIGH SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS and REPORTED ON THE BAD GRADES HE MADE IN THE NEWSPAPER!!!

I want you all to use your heads here. IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY REAL IMPROPRIETY IN HIS ACTIONS, IT IS ABSURD TO THINK THAT THE PRESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALL OVER IT.

Holt has gotten a lot of used vehicles, and he has given away a lot. The circles he runs in, people help whoever they see is in need. They have been from long-time friends, not lobbyiests looking for payback. The ethics commission has looked at this, and if there were anything to it, someone would have filed those complaints on Jim. You know they would have.

It is not like when you become a legislator your auntie or best friend can't give you gifts anymore- it is that people in position to benefit from your office can't. There is no conflict of interest if you get a gift from someone with no political axe to grind.; 10:24 PM, June 22, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Mean Old GOP,

I am not sure the people you speak of have ever supported Holt, even when he got 70% in a state-wide primary.

What has Holt failed to go along with? The GOP's march toward liberalism? The march toward a centralized, bloated school system? THe march toward a nation without borders?

The people you speak of may resent his failure to go along with those plans, but the grassroots are grateful for it.

As for me and toast running people off, we don't. We don't stop them from posting. Something about heat and kitchens comes to mind. If they don't want to stay and debate, if they get tired of being called on faulty logic and faultier fact, then why blame us?; 10:36 PM, June 22, 2005
Anonymous said...: Jim Holt was, however, the key note speaker at the Constitution Party Convention,; 5:27 AM, June 23, 2005
Anonymous said...: To me, it just shows that Jim Holt has an even broader appeal. He can work with people for the good of this country regardless of party affiliation. He was known to have work with conservative Democrats as well. That's the mark of a real public servant.

The cause of this country is greater than just the Republican party. The way things are going presently, voting Republicans for office does not always mean voting Conservatives for office!

Many true conservatives have been quite discouraged, disillusioned, and even disgusted by the Republican Party (state and national) of late. Yes, the Republican politicians can talk all they want about a whole host of issues like diabetes and weight loss - but when it comes to something substantial like illegal immigration and border issues, the people seem to only hear a bunch of meaningless rhetoric.; 7:36 AM, June 23, 2005
Anonymous said...: Some selections from George Washington's farewell address on party politics:

They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.; 7:47 AM, June 23, 2005
Anonymous said...: posting GW's speech sure put an end to the interesting comments. If you ever want to shut somebody up, quote unbearably long speeches.; 2:20 PM, June 23, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Mean Old GOP said

When it comes to the 70%, please look in the archives, I don't feel like explaining how a campaign works anymore.

It works real well when your guy gets 70% of the vote in a state-wide primary. As much as his detractors try to spin it, Holt dominated the Republican primary one year ago. No wonder you are "tired of explaning." It does not matter how much you try to spin it, that was an impressive win.

Third, I don't feel like defending the party on the issues...yes I do disagree with them. I would not characterize them as a "march towards liberalism." We've done far more in the past 40 years to stop it than the Constitution Party has.

The Constitution Party has only existed since 1999 (its predecessor was a few years older). Since that time, the Republican Party has expanded government spending to record levels, appointed the majority of supreme court justices who uphold roe v. wade and the lawrence case (homosexual acts). They have expanded government entitlement programs (like prescription drugs) more than anyone since FDR. Our money has lost 80% of it's purchasing power in my lifetime.

We are policing more countries than ever before, while they only feign minimal interest in stopping the flow of illegals entering our country.

They won't stop the judges,
They won't stop spending,
They won't stop the borders,
They won't stop sending our men to every mudhole on earth and keeping them there. We are still in Bosnia for crying out loud. WHY?

For a real look at what today's GOP stands for, go to
http://www.cparkansas.org/gopwatch.htm

The party people I speak of, in general have no problem with Holt's stances. How many times do I have to say that? In fact, they LOVE republicans who can energize our base down to the grassroots level. Party folks don't like him because he is out for no one but himself.

Then we are speaking of different party people. They did not like his refusal to bend on local control of schools, or on resisting tax increases. Or on SB 206. I could go on. Holt is a real conservative, not a guy who talks conservative during the campaing and then does the opposite in office. The phony conservatives hate the real one, because he shows them to be false.

Here's a good example:

We just had a big fundraiser Monday with 1,700 people attending. EVERY Republican candidate for any notable office was there. In fact, they spent their time and resources to sell tickets...which were very expensive to sell. Was Jim Holt there? Did he sell any tickets? When was the last time he came to any Republican event that did not directly benefit himself. I dare say, he would find more support in the party if he helped further the cause together.

So Holt is supposed to ask people for their hard earned money so he can buy tickets, spend 8 hours on the road and $50 in gas to do what? Sit in the audience like a dork while the GOP establishment plays favorites and has Matayo get up on the stage and lead the pledge? Just like when they had that tea for the candidates a month ago and did not even invite Holt. "Oh, we thought he dropped out." was the lame excuse. Pick up the phone and ask him!

The GOP establishment is playing favorites at these events. Asa almost got slighted too, but Jeb Bush went out of his way to praise Asa and equalize his lack of platform time.

Until they handle these things in an equtable manner, I think conservatives should boycott them. It was these same insiders that got the party those hefty fines and big debt any way. Then they expect conservatives to come bail them out even while they slight them.

If we are to advance the conservative cause, we have to unite and help each other. That is why we have political parties. Jim Holt in office cannot accomplish anything. Holt in office with a conservative legislature, governor, and other important offices can accomplish much.

Then they should unite behind a guy who is the clear leader in this race. Instead, we get the kind of cheese whiz that we have seen on this thread, with anyone who defends the lead guy being accused of being in a cult! Maybe we just don't want to see a leading conservative get beat by character assassination.

Unity is the only way we can defend this country of the cancer called liberalism. Therefore, Holt needs to be a team player if he expects help.

Then they need to unite behind Holt in this race, and quit trying to undermine and slight him.

"Uniting" with plans to raise taxes and spending, cede government to the judges, increase central government control of local schools, and expand handouts to illegal aliens is no way to fight liberalism, IT IS LIBERALISM. The team Holt is on is going the wrong way on these things, and he is trying to pull them to the right way.

Unity should not be at the expense of truth.; 9:38 PM, June 23, 2005
Anonymous said...: Asa was only in charge of implementing a policy set by the President and Congress. He could not do anything that he was not authorized to do. Now that he is running for an executive office himself, he is speaking out on the need to close down the borders.

By the way Rockefeller supported the Governor's bill to give scholarships to illegals. Not even Beebe did that.

As for Asa being a carpetbagger -that is so absurd. He was born here and was raised on a farm here, he attended school here and worked here until he was elected to Congress from ARKANSAS. You obviously don't understand the term carpetbagger. If anyone is a carpetbagger, it's Win who was born and lived in New York and Europe until he was thirty.; 10:55 AM, June 24, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: I am glad that you are still open to voting for Jim Holt. If any more than 1 voter in 20 had changed their vote last time, Holt would be a Senator in DC right now. There is no way Hathorn or Woolridge will have the stature or money that Blance Lincoln had. The race is very winnable for someone who is able to appeal to populist Democrats.

I beleive I have reconciled my views to the scriptures, including those on taxes, illegal immigration, and the role of government. The Bible does speak to these things, though the answers are often general in nature and we have to be open to the idea that our interpretaitions can be wrong.

I have said that I am open to voting for Asa, but have not committed to it. I don't have to legitimize the "lesser of two evils" with my vote. I am not saying that Asa is evil, it is just that I have some concerns, with what you mention being among them. If Hitler were running against Stalin, who gets my vote? Neither of course. That is an extreme example, but my point is I don't HAVE to vote for anyone.

The CP is not looking to unseat real conservatives, just the posers. Anyway, Arkansas is a one party state, it is just that the identidy of the party varies from region to region. The Dems don't have a prayer in NWA outside of Fayetteville. The GOP does not have a chance in the Delta. The CP would be the 2nd party in these areas.

Don't quit posting. Don't get upset on the back-and-forth. It makes us all sharper.; 8:11 PM, June 24, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: Mean Old GOP,

I just now got a day off. The Bible is very clear about the role of Civil Government.

1 Peter 2:13 and 14 and Romans 13:1-7 say the same thing. Government is God's Servant. It is not some autonomous thing out there that God has no opinion's about. It is His servant to...
1. Bring Wrath on Evil Doers
and
2. Honor/Encourage those who do good.

When Christ said "Give Unto Ceasar the Things that Are Ceasar's and Give Unto God the things that are GOd's, He was not saying ...

God and Ceasar,

but

God

and Ceaser

At any rate our duty to "Ceasar" in our country IS to get involved in the process. Our Ceasar expects us to participate.

Psalms Chapter 2 is an example of scriptures that indicate we shold be leery of one world government and governments having too much power in general- leaders tend to want to throw off all constraints on their conduct, which the law of God then becomes an unwelcome check.

Daniel 7 shows that all kingdoms and Dominions will become God's. That vision and it's interpretation is very similar to the story in the 2nd chapter of Daniel. The theme is the same. Namely all kingdoms and dominions and authorities will be ruled over by the new kingdom of God and his people. It is not an outward kingdo, it is from the heart. But if you change enough hearts, the RESULTS will show on the outside, even though that is not where the kingdom is.

I am rambling, in part because of the hour. The bottom line is that even as far back as 1st Samuel Chapter 8 God has made it clear that He has a disdain for big government. That the more people accept Him as King, and His Law as binding, the less need they will have for rulers.

In His Law, many things are commanded, but not all of them have civil penalties attached. For example, it is commanded that one be generous to the poor, but never is there a penealty attached, such as there is with theft. That combined with the New Testament scriptures describing the role of government show that the Welfare State is not a bibical concept, nor is it "christian" to vote to expand such programs.

I have only scratched the surface, and I am not sure I want to poke too deep in it on AW. Maybe I will post a link when I do it elsewhere.

Some of the Articles at www.cparkansas.org are also instructive.; 1:27 AM, June 27, 2005
Anonymous said...: WELL SAID MARK; 7:07 PM, June 30, 2005
Anonymous said...: Thank you JP PG, it is good to see you back here.; 7:08 PM, June 30, 2005
Anonymous said...: Mark,
Therefore is it "unchristian" or "unbiblical" in your view to vote for a tax?; 7:26 PM, June 30, 2005
Mark Moore (Moderator) said...: No. The question is "what is the money spent on" not how or how much is raised. Is it part of a Bibical role of government, or at least the Constitutional role (according to original intent).; 9:21 PM, June 30, 2005
Anonymous said...: Looking for US.... If you are like me it seems like there is never enough time in the day.. You get home late and leave early.. then the weekends thats another story by itself. My wife has found it easier to hire somebody if you we need help with remodeling ideas. She fond a great site for remodeling ideas at http://remodelinghelp4u.com and wanted to share it with you.. Im glad to find help when I need it.. I hope you have great luck remodeling your home...; 7:32 PM, August 09, 2006
Anonymous said...: Check it ou homes vinyl siding colors examples on homes; 11:14 AM, September 08, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hello Everyone

I have made a Web site about definition of cognition.

I hope you check it out.

http://moti4u.com; 6:48 PM, September 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: WHY ME

Im trying to find people that want to Change their Lives for the better. If your interested in book depression help self and want to start living like your the richest person in the world visit us at http://goals.spiritualideas.com/.; 11:42 PM, October 11, 2006
Anonymous said...: http://www.mensstyleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3042
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN EUR 1.10 pro pille >>> Jetzt Kaufen! <<< CIALIS REZEPTFREI KAUFEN CIALIS information[/b]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN BESTELLEN CIALIS CIALIS on line[/b]
http://www.americanredhots.com/index.php?topic=702.0
[u][b]CIALIS ONLINE KAUFEN OHNE REZEPT[/b][/u]
[url=http://rainedrop.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=126]CIALIS KAUF ONLINE[/url] - CIALIS Online Billig Kaufen
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS BESTELLEN OHNE REZEPT CIALIS Nederland[/b]
[url=http://www.colleges.ch/curriculum-vitae-f7/kaufen-cialis-eur-1-15-pro-pille-cialis-bestellen-rezeptfrei-t597.html]KAUF BILLIG CIALIS[/url] - CIALIS KAUF
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS KAUFEN OHNE REZEPT CIALIS fuer frau[/b]
[url=http://www.clinicdiy.com/netclinic/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=50&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=]REZEPTFREI CIALIS KAUF[/url] - CIALIS OHNE REZEPT BESTELLEN
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS REZEPTFREI KAUFEN CIALIS Holland[/b]; 2:59 PM, January 28, 2010
Anonymous said...: [center][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_cialis.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_levitra.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_viagra.jpg[/img][/url][/center]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN EUR 1.10 pro pille >>> Jetzt Kaufen! <<< Kaufen Preiswerten CIALIS CIALIS information[/b]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN KAUFEN REZEPTFREI CIALIS PFIZER CIALIS[/b]
http://www.seopt.de/seoforum/members/billigcialis.html
[u][b]CIALIS ONLINE KAUFEN OHNE REZEPT[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.sman1-semitau.sch.id/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29]BILLIG CIALIS BESTELLEN[/url] - CIALIS PREISVERGLEICH
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN BESTELLEN CIALIS BILLIG alternativ zu CIALIS[/b]
[url=http://rainedrop.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=138]CIALIS ONLINE KAUFEN[/url] - REZEPTFREI CIALIS BESTELLEN
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS Nederland[/b]
[url=http://www.claninabox.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=499]CIALIS Rezeptfrei[/url] - BILLIG CIALIS im Internet Kaufen
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN KAUFIN BILLIG CIALIS ONLINE CIALIS Schweiz[/b]; 5:49 AM, February 01, 2010
Anonymous said...: [center][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_cialis.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_levitra.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_viagra.jpg[/img][/url][/center]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN EUR 1.10 pro pille >>> Jetzt Kaufen! <<< BILLIG CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS Schweiz[/b]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS im Internet Kaufen PFIZER CIALIS[/b]
http://www.kanarenforum.de/members/billigcialis.html
[u][b]KAUFEN CIALIS OHNE REZEPT[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.immobilienforum.de/members/billigcialis.html]REZEPTFREI CIALIS KAUFEN[/url] - CIALIS Online Billig Kaufen
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN KAUFIN BILLIG CIALIS ONLINE CIALIS online kaufen[/b]
[url=http://www.naturforum.de/members/billigcialis.html]CIALIS im Internet Kaufen BILLIG[/url] - KAUFIN BILLIG CIALIS ONLINE
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN Kaufen Preiswerten CIALIS CIALIS bestellen[/b]
[url=http://my.prostreetonline.com/member/CialisKaufen]BILLIG CIALIS[/url] - CIALIS BESTELLEN
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS REZEPTFREI KAUFEN CIALIS Suisse[/b]; 9:30 PM, March 01, 2010
Anonymous said...: [center][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_cialis.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_levitra.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_viagra.jpg[/img][/url][/center]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN EUR 1.10 pro pille >>> Jetzt Kaufen! <<< BILLIG CIALIS Rezeptfrei FREE CIALIS[/b]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS Rezeptfrei CIALIS online bestellen[/b]
http://www.kanarenforum.de/members/billigcialis.html
[u][b]KAUFEN CIALIS OHNE REZEPT[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.immobilienforum.de/members/billigcialis.html]Kaufen CIALIS Ohne Vorschrift[/url] - CIALIS REZEPTFREI KAUFEN
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS BESTELLEN OHNE REZEPT FREE CIALIS[/b]
[url=http://www.naturforum.de/members/billigcialis.html]CIALIS BILLIG OHNE REZEPT[/url] - REZEPTFREI KAUFEN CIALIS
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN BILLIG CIALIS CIALIS bestellen[/b]
[url=http://my.prostreetonline.com/member/CialisKaufen]REZEPTFREI CIALIS KAUF[/url] - BILLIG CIALIS Rezeptfrei
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS OHNE REZEPT CIALIS Rezeptfrei[/b]; 2:42 AM, March 04, 2010
Anonymous said...: [center][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_cialis.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_levitra.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.viagra-billig.medsjoy.biz][img]http://www.viagrakaufen.enjoymeds.biz/kaufen_viagra.jpg[/img][/url][/center]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN EUR 1.10 pro pille >>> Jetzt Kaufen! <<< REZEPTFREI KAUFEN CIALIS FREE CIALIS[/b]
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS BILLIG CIALIS Austria[/b]
http://www.colleges.ch/curriculum-vitae-f7/rezeptfrei-cialis-eur-1-15-pro-pille-bestellen-cialis-rezept-t593-15.html
[u][b]KAUFEN CIALIS OHNE REZEPT[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.mensstyleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3042]CIALIS PREISVERGLEICH[/url] - KAUFEN Preiswertester CIALIS
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS Online Bestellen CIALIS Deutschland[/b]
[url=http://www.merabollywood.com/bollywood-masala-board/21063-billig-cialis-eur-1-15-pro-pille-bestellen-cialis-billig-rezeptfrei.html]CIALIS BILLIG OHNE REZEPT KAUFEN OHNE REZEPT[/url] - CIALIS KAUF
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN KAUF CIALIS CIALIS information[/b]
[url=http://www.talktwells.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5]CIALIS Online Billig Kaufen[/url] - CIALIS im Internet Kaufen BILLIG
[b]CIALIS KAUFEN CIALIS im Internet BESTELLEN PFIZER CIALIS[/b]; 11:59 PM, March 04, 2010

Arkansas Watch

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Holt, Matayo Spokesman, Contend over SB206

65 Comments:

Contributors

Archives