Banks Supports Amnesty for Illegal Aliens?
Trial Lawyer Chuck Banks, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor, answered some questions at a forum in Jonesboro yesterday. Like his opponent Senator Jim Holt, Banks opposes using taxpayer funds for college scholarships for illegal aliens. A third candidate in the race, state Rep. Doug Matayo, strongly supports taxpayer funded scholarships for persons who are here illegally. Holt and Banks differ on the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens. Here is the account:
Following are the exact words that Lt. Governor candidate Chuck Banks had to say recently when he spoke at a Republican meeting in answer to a question on illegal aliens.
Question: One of your Republican opponents, Senator Holt, strongly opposes scholarships for illegal aliens and your other opponent, Matayo, strongly supports it. Where do you stand on it?
(click "Wednesday" below for rest of article or if sent directly here just scroll down)
Following are the exact words that Lt. Governor candidate Chuck Banks had to say recently when he spoke at a Republican meeting in answer to a question on illegal aliens.
Question: One of your Republican opponents, Senator Holt, strongly opposes scholarships for illegal aliens and your other opponent, Matayo, strongly supports it. Where do you stand on it?
(click "Wednesday" below for rest of article or if sent directly here just scroll down)
posted by Debbie Pelley at Wednesday, March 29, 2006
68 Comments:
Banks: "I oppose it. I have a difference with them on how we deal with illegal aliens problems. I fall back to my days as US. Attorney. We already have a program in effect in the federal government that if we want to ferret out illegal aliens if they have no criminal record or no hate crime connection to anti American government sources; and if hey are just people that are here and ought to know better, they need to get their papers straight and if they are just trying to work and feed a family, I think we ought to put them on a year's probation and say you have 12 months to get your papers straight or you're gone.
If there is anybody else that possesses a criminal background or hate based crimes against the US Government, they ought to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly whether they have children or not. I don't think people in Arkansas are interested whatsoever in providing scholarships to people who are here illegally."
I would apprecitate comments from anyone who knows exactly what Banks means by the statement, "We already have a program in effect in the federal government." or from anyone who can explain what Banks means by the line "if they are just people that are here and ought to know better, they need to get their papers straight and if they are just trying to work and feed a family, I think we ought to put them on a year's probation and say you have 12 months to get your papers straight or you're gone"
Is Banks advocating some type of amnesty or just what?. If anyone knows his position and can clarify it, I would like to hear it. And when Banks says he has a "difference with them", is he talking about Holt and Matayo? I presume he is. Does anyone know what Matayo's stand is on any type of amnesty? There was no opportunity at the meeting to ask Banks these questions since he left right after his speech. Debbie Pelley
Isn't President Bush for amnesty?
yes he is, and he is wrong on it. he is tonedeaf to the people who elected him on this issue. it is another "Dubai port" type thing.
Maybe it was Andy Card that was pushing the amnesty thing so much, if so Bush is finally taking steps to get some better advice.
So Holt doesn't support amnesty, but he's all for providing them with free daycare by voting to support Pre-K? He's against providing their children with college scholarships, but he has no problem giving them free daycare in Pre-K. So he's only against illegals half of the time. He seems to be a little confused.
Banks has said something to the effect of "one they are caught here give them one year to get their paperwork in order before you deport them" It was at the Delta Forum it appeared on the Arkansas Times website.
Holt is opposed to pre-K
why did he vote to fund it
Holt voted to fund pre-K. That does not sound like he opposes it to me.
I'm confused, too. Are you two slimers attacking Holt for being anti-illegal immigrant, like you normally do, or are you now going to try to paint him as pro-illegal since it suits the purpose at hand?
And just what is Matayo's positions on amnesty and pre-K? Why do we have to keep asking? Can we get a quote or something?
You know the truth on this, yet you still spin it like Holt was ever for pre-K. Shame on you Paul- and no I don't have to look it up on our abuse-tracker.
When he was a legislator for two months he voted for his one and only tax- a temporary beer tax. He was under the impression that some of the money would be used to help children who were victims of alcohol abusing parents. It turns out he was wrong and the money went to what amounted to a Pre-K program. He said he made a mistake when he voted for that bill- his opponent wants to fund pre-K on purpose.
I can't speak definitely for Mr. Matayo, but what I can gather from a conversation with him is the following:
He is opposed to amnesty and favors cracking down on law-breaker illegal aliens. (See his bill that prevents illegals from getting drivers licenses.) He just doesn't want to make legislation that does it in a way that makes children the targets of the legislation. He understands that some children of illegal aliens may be "collateral damage" in the process enforcing our laws, but cannot stand the thought of making them the primary target.
He doesn't believe that the illegal aliens that are here are hostile invaders and has sympathy for their plight. However, he believes that the best way to enforce and YES EVEN STRENGTHEN our borders is to do it in a way that does not stir up so much hatred and bigotry.
That being said, he does not believe that Mr. Holt is a bigot or hater in any way. He just believes that his methods stirs up those hateful types and that Mr. Holt tolerates them too much for his own political gain.
Mr Matayo seems to believe that the most EFFECTIVE way of accomplishing what Mr. Holt wants to accomplish (yes, they have the same goal) is by doing it in a way that is meek, loving, and Christ-like in manner.
It seems to me that his Christ-like method is more effective than Mr. Holt since he was able to pass legislation that made it more difficult for illegals to reside in Arkansas while Mr. Holt failed miserably at his efforts.
I countered that even Christ turned over the money changers tables in the temple. He said yes, but pointed out that if he were to act out of righteous anger as Christ had done, he would save it for confronting wrongs IN THE CHURCH, just a Christ did. I was impressed. Mr. Matayo knows his scripture.
It seems to me that Mr. Matayo has taken the more Christian position and done it in a much more Christ-like manner.
He convinced me. I was surprised and convinced.
His positions were quite (even extremely so) conservative, but his manner and method shows me a spiritual depth that I envy.
First of all, my name is not Paul. You SHOULD look that up on your "abuse tracker". And second of all, we can't afford those kinds of "mistakes". Can Holt not read these things before he votes on them? Why is he the one that is always having to make excuses for the way he voted because he wasn't clear on what he was voting for. Exactly when did he say he made a mistake? When asked about this vote just over a week ago, at a public event, he denied it completey. Why was that? Why does he keep trying to lie his way out of things?
What about the time that Holt was pushing for midwives to get paid by the government so they could help those less fortunate, even though the midwives admitted that most of their clients were illegals? That sounds pro-illegal to me. Luckily that didn't make it very far because he was laughed out of there.
After reading 6:43 post I feel convicted. I'm very impressed with what I just read about Mr. Matayo, and I realize that I have been sucked in to this negative posting and it does not go along with Mr. Matayo's style. Feel free to keep sucking the life out of eachother, but I will not waste anymore precious time. I will look to Mr. Matayo as an example of how to act.
You Matayo people are too much. If Holt's people got on here and claimed their guy was more Christ-like than Matayo you would be outraged.
That drivers license bill was not Matayo's idea. Every state in the union had to pass a bill like that or the Feds would pound them. It was part of the 911 legislation to make it harder for terrorists to get fake IDS. It only had a side effect of making it harder for illegals to get them.
Matayo knew he was in trouble with his support of the scholarships for illegals bill so he marketed that anti-terrorism bill as an anti-illegal bill to get cover. People at the capitol know that.
More Christ-like than the other guys? I don't think so.
No one said Matayo was Christ-like, his manner was though. That is a big difference.
First of all, give me an example of Holt's compassionate, Christ-like behavior--in all honesty I would love to read it.
Second of all, who's idea was the driver's license bill, and why didn't they run it? They should have known it would be popular.
Third of all, what people at the capitol know it? I was told that a constituent of Matayo's made the comment that "before you know it, illegals will be able to vote" and that is why he ran the driver's license bill. Makes sense to me--he listens to his constituents. All I know is that, if he is the man 6:43 describes, he seems like a pretty good guy.
Of course he left right after the speech. He's got a family to provide for too and had to drive back to Little Rock. Get a life Pelley!
He's also in the middle of campaigning, and if his schedule is anything like Matayo's, then he would have to leave right after his speech to go to the next event. That is not a hard thing to realize.
It seems obvious that Matayo and Banks are afraid of being criticized for being racists or anti-immigrant, so they try to disguise their cowardice in so-called compassion. I think we have PLENTY of those kinds of politicians in office already.
I want to know what they would tell others who are patiently waiting to immigrate here. Politicians have all the compassion in the world with OUR money, and while they would steal it from us to fund all their nice little programs for illegals, they are thumbing their nose at would-be immigrants elsewhere who still believe the myth that America is a nation of laws. How "Christian is it to treat those people that way? How "Christian" is it to be lawless?
It is easy to see from this thread who it is that are the haters and slimers really are.
Rock on Holtites. There more people see your TRUE character the better.
Children of foreign nationals are NOT illegal. Debbie, you are stirring anger, fear and racist sentiments to advance your agenda. Federal law says these children are not illegal. Tell the whole truth. Momma always said a partial truth is a whole lie. Please clean it up.
You are wrong. This topic has already been covered here.
You owe Debbie an apology for calling her a liar.
Not true. 5:02 is right, and I would lump Holt right in there with her.
I was not insinuating there was any problem with Banks leaving after the meeting. I was only trying to find out if anyone knew what he meant by his comments and explaing why I didn't ask him myself. If you read something into that, then I am sorry. I reread what I wrote, and I don't see where I made any comments that could be called racist. I simply reported what Banks said and asked if anyone knew what stands Matayo and Banks had on amnesty and the raging controversy over this matter? So how did I tell a lie, unless you are saying there is no such thing as an illegal alien. I really regret that we can't discuss things on the blogs in a civilized manner and stick to issues. I think you will find that my posts deal with research that can be documented and that I don't call people names and don't get ugly with the things I say unless the truth is considered ugly. I don't mind anyone quetioning my research or disagreeing and personally it doesn't even hurt me when you call me a liar. It would hurt a lot worse if you could document something I say as being in error. Debbie Pelley
Mrs. Pelley, I will get straight to the point. HB 1525 mkaes no reference to ILLEGAL ALIENS. Federal law clearly states that children who are undocumented are NOT illegal until they reach 18 years and 6 months. Many of these children who were going to be the true recipients of this legislation have parents who are here LEGALLY on work visas, etc. Their children unfortunately under our incongruous federal immigration policy (which I agree needs fixing and be made uniform) have NO legal status (or illegal).
I don't know for sure, but I would say your statement about Rep. Matayo is patently untrue and purposely being demagogued. I doubt a legislator (Matayo) would vote for ILLEGALS to get scholarships while also being the SOLE sponsor on a bill which forbids illegal residents of our state from obtaining a drivers license.
Why don't you have a heart to heart with MR. Matayo. Stop all this angry talk from all sides and see if he really is what the Holt supporters are portraying him to be.
Just a thought. But HB 1525 says ZERO about extending scholarships to ILLEGALS.
I have heard Sen. Holt acknowleged the fact in a PUBLIC forum last year that these children in HB 1525 were NOT (I repeat--NOT) illegal. He can't have it both ways and be representing honesty on this issue.
5:31 I never saw anyone call a liar. They said she was telling a partial truth. You owe that person an apology for saying they called Debbie a liar. Let's all get in line for our apologies.
Tell the whole truth. Momma always said a partial truth is a whole lie.
Is logic stretched over two sentences too hard for you to understand?
So, according to Matayo, people here on work visas have a RIGHT to have their college tuition and perhaps a scholarship subsidized/paid for by the taxpayers of Arkansas!? That's just as ridiculous as the other beneficaires of HB1525: those you claim "are not really illegal but aren't really legal, either."
Yes, the system needs an overhaul: they need to haul the illegals back over the border.
The people here on work visas are the parents, not the children--last I knew we don't hand out work visa's to 10 year olds. And no one has a "right" to a college scholarship--it has to be earned (and in my opinion, anyone who can make straight A's and a 32 on their ACT deserves a scholarship) And, the statement was not a "claim" as you say, it is the law. Look it up, but I suspect that you would rather go on calling them illegal to feed your feelings toward them. Some people just don't want to know the truth--it would interfere with their prejudices.
7:08--so who do you think should get college scholarships, only American citizens?
Nothing but red herring. You are obviously grasping at straws.
I don't care if YOU want to give a scholarship to a non-American. What we're talking about here is the requirement for the TAXPAYERS to pay for those scholarships. NO, I do not believe you should have the taxpayers pay for tuition/scholarships of non-Americans. Can you not understand that?
Just because you keep insisting that "federal law" makes the children of illegals somehow legal, does not make it true. And it isn't true. This has already been discussed on the thread linked to above.
The people here on work visas are the parents, not the children...
So, you believe that just because someone was invited over here to work, the taxpayers should pay for the college tuition of that worker's CHILDREN!? This just keeps getting more ridiculous!
You are a socialist.
Actually, any scholarship program is socialistic. It takes from one group to give money to someone else. I know Jim Holt would never vote for any scholarship expansion program because that would be a vote for socialism.
6:00 and 6:06 Those parents that are here on work visas are also taxpayers. If you do not believe that taxpayers should have to pay for scholarships for non-Americans, then we shouldn't require non-Americans to pay taxes. But then our economy would tank.
"I don't care if YOU want to give a scholarship to a non-American. What we're talking about here is the requirement for the TAXPAYERS to pay for those scholarships. NO, I do not believe you should have the taxpayers pay for tuition/scholarships of non-Americans. Can you not understand that?"
But it's ok for the taxpayers to pay for their daycare in Pre-K, which is something Jim Holt voted to do.
You claim the economy would tank if they didn't pay taxes, yet you don't mind voting in socialistic benefits for them?
If they don't like the terms of their visas, there's plenty of people waiting patiently to come here who wouldn't mind such "harsh" terms. On the other hand, if you are successful in installing benefit after benefit for visa holders, then there will be fewer of those visas available overall.
You claim that ANY taxpayer funded scholarships is socialistic in nature. Are you therefore opposed to scholarships, or are you arguing for the expansion of socialism?
By the way, are you for non-Americans displacing Americans in limited-space universities and colleges?
The Holt comment is more red herring. You lean on confusion because your arguments are so lame and unsupported by the majority of people in Arkansas.
7:07 Have you ever walked onto a college campus? They are full of non-Americans. There are also plenty of universities in other nations with Americans on their campus. You are racist. You just admitted that you don't want anyone but Americans in this country.
You are a moron. Your arguments have come to their pathetic end, and you have now played the race card as soon as you thought you could get away with it.
For others who may be distracted by the race baiters:
There is a limited amount of money available for scholarships. If Matayo and the others who want taxpayer funded scholarships for non-Americans and illegals get their way, there will be Arkansans who would otherwise have been qualified, but would lose out to the added beneficiaries. This is a displacement of American children by non-Americans and illegals.
The "compassionate" socialsists love to carry on as if there are nothing but benefits when they steal and spend our money, and when someone dares to point out the drawbacks, they call them racist.
Is there really limited money for scholarships? When I recently graduated from a high school in this great state, there were scholarships given to seniors who came from millionaire parents. They didn't have the best grades in our class, but since they came from wealthy families, with well known last names, they were awarded full scholarships. Give me a break about there being limited funds for scholarships. Crawl out from under your rock. Tell me how many Arkansans with straight A's and a 32 on their ACT's didn't get a scholarship? I was awarded a scholarship and I made C's and B's (mostly C's). If I can get a scholarship, then there must be plenty of money out there.
If you don't want your tax money to go to "so called illegals" then why did Jim Holt vote to let them have free daycare in Pre-K. If you're going to argue for something, then argue for it 100%. Don't just defend the man because you happen to like him. That isn't fair to the rest of the taxpayers that now have to pay for free daycare because of Holt.
Actually, 7:26 doesn't have a clue, these are MERIT scholarships (merit=you have to earn it). Earning it means getting a high GPA and better than a 30 on the ACT. CLuesless 7:26 am: the state has a surplus in these trust funds because not enough "documented" kiddos are making the grades. Would it be better to lower the standards so that "documented" --but not as qualified on their merits -- school kids get the scholarship or is it better for a child who qualifies on their merits get the dollars.
It strikes me that lowering the bar is not the answer.
Is it more socialistic to lower the bar or allow this for children who have broken no law and have EARNED this based upon their classroom performance?
This bill provided NO set aside or quota as you have just tried to insinuate. Have you even read the bill? (It is available online and isn't very long.)
Please stop trying to deceive people and stir up racial tension. There is no displacement. The state of Arkansas has money in these scholarship trust funds and not enough Arkansas kids who qualify. What a shame!
Just like a socialist: "There's plenty for everyone, boys!" The taxpayers' pockets are a never-ending source of money to fund everything for everyone.
I personally know people who qualified for scholarships at our local state university, but were unable to receive them because of budget shortages.
I notice you didn't answer the question about expanding taxpayer funded scholarships rather than ending the practice, since you think both are socialist in nature. You'd rather yell "racist" and attack Jim Holt.
Would it be better to lower the standards so that "documented" --but not as qualified on their merits -- school kids get the scholarship
We're not "documented," we're AMERICANS! Do you have a problem with an America first policy, little socialist?
There are many people in the world who are "more qualified" than our college students. How about opening up the entire system to internationals and have them all compete for enrollment? Why stop with the ones who are here illegally (oh, I'm sorry, "undocumentedly")?
it sounds like 8:55 is using the strawman tactic.
He's putting words in someones mouth and then responding as if he's actually answered the original questions.
I'm obviously having a debate with a globalist. This person thinks we should all apologize to the world for having a system that benefits Americans more than it does illegals and those here on visas.
Could someone please tell the Walton Family that they need to stop handing out scholarships to students from South America. The Walton family is only able to do this because we all shop at Walmart, and therefore they are using OUR money to help pay for a foreigner to go to college in our country. THIS HAS TO STOP! I'm outraged as an American citizen that they are giving this money to foreigners instead of American children. JIM HOLT, PLEASE TAKE ON THE WALTON FAMILY, NOW!!!! They are destroying Americans.
Taxpayer funded scholarships--TAXPAYER funded scholarships, the issue is TAXPAYER FUNDED SCHOLARSHIPS! Paying for the tuition of foreigners should be a matter of conscience, not another casual burden laid upon the backs of taxpayers.
I'm going to quit wasting my time on this thread. You obviously either lack the capacity to understand simple premises, or are intent at distorting the issue at hand to avoid appearing like an imbecile.
What about TAXPAYER FUNDED PRE-K for illegals? You keep avoiding the fact that Holt is all for giving them free daycare. I'm sure there are hundreds more of them in Pre-K than will ever qualify for a scholarship.
Holt is against taxpayer funded pre-K for illegals. That has already been explained to you, but you do not want to know the truth. You just want to attack Holt.
And 8:55 is incorrect on the facts. The program was once available to ALL Arkansas students who had the merit. Then the program was changed so that if your parents made more than $50,000 you don't get the scholarship no matter what your merit.
THAT is why there was a surplus of funds in the program- funds that globalists want to give to persons who are in this country illegally.
THe Amercian kid sits right next to an illegal kid, but because the American's parents make 52K a year and the illegal's parents make 42 a year the illegal gets the scholarship and the American kid's parents pay for it.
That is justice under the Matayo plan. Go Holt!
"Holt is against taxpayer funded pre-K for illegals. That has already been explained to you, but you do not want to know the truth. You just want to attack Holt."
Isn't that exactly what you are doing everytime you bring up the scholarship topic? You do not want to know the truth, you just want to attack Matayo, but for some reason, you don't like it when the same thing is done back.
Holt voted for a tax to fund pre-k. After doing this, he now makes excuses for it? He also proposed a bill to make taxpayers pay midwives because their clients couldn't afford to, even though they said most of their clients were illegals. Are you going to defend that one too? Those are 2 examples of Holt trying to give our tax money to help illegals. You spout off all this crap about not wanting tax money to go to illegals, but you defend Holt for trying to do it twice. It has nothing to do with illegals, it has everything to do with not liking Matayo because he is a threat to Holt. Tell the truth people, for once.
You can explain Holt being against pre-k all you want, except that he voted to fund it. His vote is all the proof I need.
Amazing, Banks is up there saying "Let's talk aboutgetting more pre-K, but it is not HIM you are down on about it, but Holt. Holt who said, "I should never have voted for that bill when I was a rookie legislator. I did not know it was going to fund pre-K. I am against that."
You castigate the guy who agrees with you accept for his mistake, but ignore the guy who wants to give you more of it on purpose.
Banks isn't talking out of both sides of his mouth like Holt. He is up front about what he believes in, even though I don't agree with it. I would rather have someone say "this is what I believe in" and me not agree with him than someone who says "this is what I wanted to do until I found out it wasn't popular so now I'm going to change my mind and say that I didn't mean to vote for it before I voted for it..." Kind of brings John Kerry to mind, doesn't it? I'm tired of hearing over and over that Holt didn't read something in full before voting for it. If it had happened one time or even twice, fine. But this is almost a weekly occurence to read his "apologies" in the paper. But amazing he only admits he did wrong AFTER is was caught. He even lied about not voting for pre-k at a Lincoln Day dinner a couple of weeks ago in front of everyone. At least Banks is honest, like him or not.
Yeah, Banks is honest. Just Google the guy's name, and you'll see how 'honest' the man you're propping up is. Doesn't matter, not if sending voters his way will help your boy Matayo, does it?
As far as the encounter a few weeks back, to that day Holt didn't realize that there was any pre-K funding in that bill. That's why it appeared as if he "admitted it afterward," as you say (but you know this). Even the uber-liberal John Brummet, who claims that he can't find any common ground with Holt, says that Jim is as honest as they come.
"You're tired of Holt's mistakes," yet even with your microscopic hyper-analysis of Holt, which no candidate could endure, he receives a higher rating from every significant conservative organization than your plastic candidate.
Matayo, on the other hand, is an outright liar. I heard him at a Republican committee meeting this month where he denied that he even remembered the Illegals Scholarship vote, HB1525. "Oh, I don't seem to recall that vote" he says. He doesn't remember it, but he's got his three lackies on this blog every day trying to re-define what the bill was going to do. I guess he didn't have the same resolve he had when he stood on the House floor and begged all his "colleagues" to vote for it. I can see why he didn't want to admit it, but it doesn't change the fact that he lied when confronted about his vote.
8:12 Matayo has NEVER lied about that vote. You have been hanging around Holt for too long. Now you don't even know what is true and what isn't. I cannot believe you will just make things up. Do you even have a conscience? I've heard several people talk about Holt lying about his vote for Pre-K, but never has anyone said anything about Matayo lying about his vote. It's funny that you're the only one. But now I'm sure all your other little friends will start lying also. "Yeah, I heard it, me too." We know how you play the game.
And for the record Jim Holt, you can stop telling everyone you see that Matayo isn't a christian. You might want to familiarize yourself with Exodus 20:16. Just because someone doesn't agree with your twisted view of christianity, doesn't mean they aren't christians.
You can also google Jim Holt's name and a bunch of stuff about being associated white supremacy comes up. If I were you, I wouldn't judge people by what you find on google. If I were you, I'd stop judging period. You're heading down the wrong path.
8:12--Holt didn't realize it?? Then he's the ONLY one...he must be even more clueless than I thought. Even Chuck Banks knew it, and he's not a legislator.
And what I said is, Chuck Banks is honest about his views on Pre-k, unlike Holt. That is what we're discussing, isn't it? I love the way you to try to deflect Holt's faults by saying "Oh yeah, well this other guy's got faults, too blah, blah, blah... We're talking about PRE-K!! And I wouldn't be so quick to call Matayo a liar. Why don't you tell me which Republican meeting you attended so I can check your story with other people there? You see, I actually like to know the facts about people before I take to calling them names like hater, bigot, slimer, liar and other preferred words used by the Holt people on this site.
Imagine that--hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a research team to comb through every vote for every bill, word by word and Banks found something that Holt didn't realize. Go figure!
As far as Matayo denying he remembered the scholarship vote, I know what I heard. Take another drink of Kool-Aid, bud. You'll need it to keep buying what your boss is selling.
Jim doesn't read this blog, you know that. But those of us who do have all seen at least one of you three slandering slimers accuse him of not being Christian or having lost his salvation. You have done this about a dozen times. Since YOU obviously read this blog, I'd like to take this opportunity to demand that you to take your own self-righteous advice.
By the way, you can Google Mike Smith and come up with a white supremacist too, but the sites you get with Chuck Banks carry a little more weight as they relate to his days as a federal prosecutor handling crimes committed in Mena. Banks doesn't have a voting record to comb through, but what history he does have is absolutely frightening.
AHHH, "slimer" again. COME ON and come up with another word!! And as much as you would like me to believe that "you know what you heard", now maybe you can provide me with the name of the town the Republican committee was held in. I still would like to check the facts. Is that so foreign to you?
I know for a fact that Jim reads these blogs. I'm sure you'd like for us to believe that he doesn't, but we know he does. I have my sources too. Sometimes, even your closest friends are not who they pretend to be. Sad, but true.
You used the word "three slandering slimers", so I'm assuming you don't know much about computers. Did you know that some computers are linked together and have the same URL address? There is an office full of computers here, and most of us are having a great time making our point and reading your hateful responses. Thanks for the entertainment.
And just for the record, I took a poll and none of us have ever had our salvation questioned. I would take my own advice, but it isn't necessary. I can't say the same for Holt.
Seeing all the "socialist" comments confirms my belief that the Holtites are calling Banks a pinko-commie and a socialist. You people are deplorable!
Banks said that it would be a good IDEA to RESEARCH Pre-K!!!!! You people can't get facts into your heads, so I guess this is pointless. Have fun drinking your Kool-Aid.
Oh, wow. Chuck didn't handle things in Mena. I'll bet you are the same idiot who tries to post slanderous things on the ArkFam website. He was US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Mena is in the WEST). Asa handled the Western District. If you have an issue with whatever conspiracy you believe from Mena, take it up with Asa.
Nice try, but we have Google now:
Try again. (second paragraph).
There are dozens more articles on his 'service' as a U.S. attorney.
Maybe you just don't know whom you're supporting....
Post a Comment
<< Home