Monday, March 31, 2008

Where is the "Emergency" for the Speical Session?

From an E-mail being circulated from Ft. Smith Attorney Oscar Stilley (whose license to practice was suspended under questionable circumstances, I believe due to the vigor with which he challenged the good-ole-boy system). The state treasury is overflowing with funds right now. Where is the "emergency" required by our constitution to raise a severance tax without a vote of the people?

Special Session Increasing Severance Tax Illegal?

Seth Blomeley reports in an Arkansas Democrat Gazette article that "Under Amendment 19 to the state constitution, the rate of the severance tax cannot be raised apart from approval by the voters in an election or, in an emergency, by a three-fourths majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate. That would be 27 votes in the Senate, 75 in the House. So where is the emergency?

Oscar Stilley, Arkansas attorney, sent the following to Arkansas Senators:

"Right now there is an attempt ongoing to violate Amendment 19 to the Arkansas Constitution, which provides:

None of the rates for property, excise, privilege or

personal taxes, now levied shall be increased by the General

Assembly except after the approval of the qualified electors

voting thereon at an election, or in case of emergency, by

the votes of three-fourths of the members elected to each

House of the General Assembly.

(emphases added)

What is the emergency? What is the claimed or pretended emergency? How does one put words on paper that remotely suggest that there is an emergency that allows the legislature to act without the vote of the people?"

Doesn't this remind all of us of the trickery used in 2005 with Governor Huckabee's bond proposal for highways would have authorized the state Highway Commission to issue up to $575 million in bonds at any time for interstate highway improvements, an authorization that would have allowed the commission to issue such bonds in the future without another vote of the people. The voters defeated that bond program by a 60 percent to 40 percent vote when the information was made known that it ended the right guaranteed by the Constitution for citizens to vote on bond issues and allowed the unelected Highway Commission to commit the state to an endless cycle of debt.

Now Governor Beebe is trying to pass a tax apart from the approval of the voters (guaranteed by the Constitution) except in case of an emergency, and no one can conscientiously claim there is an emergency. It is evident that the writers of the Arkansas Constitution intended voters to have a say in raising of certain taxes and borrowing money that would affect their taxes according to Amendment 19 and 20. Note the comparison of the two Amendments below. I wonder how many other emergencies the Legislature has used to circumvent the people's rights as guaranteed under the constitution. As Oscar Stilley said in his letter to the Senators: Legislators have a constitutional obligation to vote against any attempt to legislatively increase this tax. Legislators took an oath to uphold the constitution not their party or the person in power.

Amendment 19 - None of the rates for property, excise, privilege or

personal taxes, now levied shall be increased by the General

Assembly except after the approval of the qualified electors

voting thereon at an election, or in case of emergency, by

the votes of three-fourths of the members elected to each

House of the General Assembly. (Found under article V #38 of Arkansas Constitution (see link after Amendment 20.

(emphases added)

Amendment 20 "Bonds prohibited except when approved by majority vote of electors. - Except for the purpose of refunding the existing outstanding indebtedness of the State and for assuming and refunding valid outstanding road improvement district bonds, the State of Arkansas shall issue no bonds or other evidence of indebtedness pledging the faith and credit of the State or any of its revenues for any purpose whatsoever, except by and with the consent of the majority of the qualified electors of the State voting on the question at a general election or at a special election called for that purpose." (emphases added) Link to the Arkansas Constitution

Movie/Record Industry Finds Old-Fashioned Morality

After decades of efforts to undermine traditional morality, the movie and record industries have made an about face and are now engaged in a campaign to restore traditional morality, at least in one narrow area. They wish to emphasize that stealing is wrong, especially as it concerns their digital works!

Does anyone else see the irony here? Many of these institutions have done everything they can to undermine public morals and insult those who hold to them, and the Christian Worldview from which they sprung. They have coarsened the landscape with ever increasing amounts of vulgarity, profanity, promiscuity, perversion, violence, and rebellion- all glorified in Dolby Stereo and Living Color. Those who held to old fashioned morality were impugned, ridiculed, insulted, mocked, and even made into mentally-ill heavies in songs and movies that bombarded the nation's psyche for generations.

These are the barbarians who threw out absolute truth and beauty. Without those things, there is nothing to decide what is really "art" and what isn't. So they quit trying to make art say something about beauty and truth and resorted to making stuff whose only value was "shock value". And who and what where they trying to shock? Why, middle America, with their antiquidated Christian-affected morality.

So Hollyweird and the Acid Rock/Gangsta Rap freaks got what they wanted. The younger generation rejected absolutes and embraced nihilism. The fools in the entertainment industry failed to see that their attacks on traditional morality were sawing off the branch on which they sat. With morals out the door, with it being all about "me and my feelings", then why shouldn't a young person make illegal copies of songs or movies they liked? Why shouldn't they give them to their friends? If right and wrong are just illusions imposed on us by mentally-ill religious nuts who probably have cut-up bodies in their freezer at home, then why is stealing wrong?

The socialists in Hollyweird taught socialism, and now the poorer teenager sees no reason to refrain from taking the property of the richer record company. Why wait for the government to do it? After all, they have taught the philosophy of socialism combined with cynicism toward governmental (and parental) authority. It is only natural that their pupils will adopt the loose view of socialists toward the private property rights of others without waiting for the government to serve as an intermediate in the theft. If there are no absolutes, then "legitimacy" has no meaning, thus there is no need to wait for government to "legitimize" unauthorized use of another person's property.

All this is not to say that I think it is OK to pirate songs and movies. The industry is right that this is stealing. It is the only moral issue they have been right on in the last forty years. One can only hope that they begin to connect the dots to other areas of life in which they have promoted immorality for their own profit even though it brings great destruction on the fabric of society for the rest of us.

I hope they will catch on, but I am not confident they will. Regardless, campaigns such as the one I show an image of above will not work absent the moral frame-work of the very people they have been undermining, slandering, mocking, and heaping abuse on for the last four decades. If they manage to convince the next generation to quit "stealing" their digital material, it will only be because middle American morality (the product of that old-tyme religion) saves them.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Mike Beebe vs. Your Family Budget

Families are hurting in Arkansas, but our state government is sitting on piles of extra money- this year alone they have collected $127 million more than they estimated they would. In addition, the natural gas industry is about to take off in the natural state, and it is bringing more jobs and more dollars and more economic activity with it. A U of A study indicates that an expanding gas industry will generate an additional $1.8 BILLION tax dollars for state government over the next five years, even without a tax rate increase.

State government is raking in money left and right, and the future looks even better for them. Increased economic activity from the coming natural gas boom will mean increased fuel tax revenues, increased sales tax revenues, increased income tax revenues, and increased property tax revenues (to the tune of $1.8 billion more over then next five years, even if they don't raise any tax rates). That is a lot of money for schools and roads and everybody else in the state with their hand out. Still, it does not appear to be enough for Governor Mike Beebe and the Arkansas legislature. They are about to call a special session to do what? RAISE TAXES!

That is right, they want to enact a severance tax of up to five percent on revenues from natural gas drilling. Once it gets rolling, this increase should send an additional $100 million a year into the already bulging coffers of the state government. Heck, with inflation in energy prices, it could wind up being a lot more than $100 million a year.

So with all of that bonanza of dollars flowing in, how much of it does Governor Mike Beebe and your Arkansas legislature want to share with you? Why actually, none. They want to spend it all themselves without giving a single penny of tax relief to any Arkansas family. They say they need the money for "roads" without giving any specific guarantees of which road is to be built. So, 100% for state government, 0% for tax relief to Arkansas families.

Their grossly imbalanced allocation of this bonanza begs for the question, "who is hurting more, the Arkansas Government or Arkansas Families?" Well Arkansas government revenues are $127 million over the expected increase. The state government planned on getting more money this year, but it is actually raking in a $127 million larger increase than they thought they would get. With the coming severance tax increase, Beebe and company are likely to grab an extra $100 million per year on top of that. Additionally, the expansion of the natural gas industry in the state has them looking at an almost two billion dollar windfall of extra tax revenues over the next five years even if they don't raise any taxes. So how is your family doing? It is my contention that our families need it more than our roads. Arkansas families need tax relief more than Arkansas government needs more revenues.

New roads don't mean much to a family who can't afford gas to travel on those roads.

It is my contention that 100% of the revenues from this tax rate increase should be returned to taxpayers in the form of tax relief for Arkansas families. Lots of politicians will tell you they are "conservative". Here is a good test for them- Any proposition to keep this windfall into the fat hands of the ever-increasing government is not "fiscally conservative". "Fiscally conservative" is reducing the amount of money that the government spends and increasing the amount that is retained by those who earned it. Any politician who tells you otherwise is lying to your face (and perhaps to themselves if they actually believe it).

Arkansans are over taxed. While it is true that our income tax burden alone is middle-of-the pack, our combined income and sales tax burden is one of the highest in the nation as a percentage of income. And our personal exemption (actually a mere $22 tax credit) is among the worst in the country. Only five states have punier exemptions/credits on income tax than Arkansas does, and each of those five has a lower income tax for a family of four making $40,000 a year.

Our state income tax exemption/credit situation is perhaps the worst in the nation, yet here is our legislature with $127 million more than they thought they would have, and about to come together to rake in an estimated $100 million more, yet they do nothing, nothing, to fix our lame state income tax exemption/credit situation.

Governor Beebe attempts to deflect from this rapaciousness by mentioning that he has cut the sales tax for groceries in half. Yes, after starting with the largest budget surplus in state history he let Arkansas families keep about 10% of the overage. He was under great pressure to do so because he was running against a fellow who proposed eliminating it all. Mike Beebe proposed eliminating half now and half later "when the budget permits it". If the budget ever permitted it, now would be the time. If not now, when? If there was ever a time that families needed tax relief, now would be the time.

Bear in mind that eliminating the grocery tax was something he committed (though to be fair did not promise) to do BEFORE this upcoming gas tax windfall. The treasury is overflowing with revenues and we have a windfall coming. Why is the Governor calling a special session to raise taxes instead of calling for one to finish the job on his commitment to eliminate the sales tax on food? Why is he calling a special session to add to the state's hoard of taxpayer monies instead of calling a special session to make our personal income tax exemption comparable with other states? They use the fact that our gas severance tax is lower than other states as an excuse to raise taxes, but they don't seem to notice that our personal income exemptions are lower than other states too! If we are keeping up with the Joneses then raise our severance tax to the national average and raise our income tax personal exemptions to the national average too! But it does not seem to be about logical consistency down there, it seems to be about separating us from our earnings.

I would urge ever legislator who cares about Arkansas families to vote against any tax rate increase unless it is at least offset by tax cuts. Families are hurting.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Candidates and Religion: Just Wondering What the Rules Are

It seems that the establishment media is giving wide if not deep coverage on the over-the-top rhetoric of Barack Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright held some advisory role on the campaign until controversial past statements came to light.

I don't want to re-hash those statements here. Instead, what I would like is a little help clarifying what the rules are vis-a-vi questioning a candidate over the beliefs of their church or religion. It seems to me that Mike Huckabee got in a huge amount of trouble, and later apologized, for simply asking a question about the Mormon faith of his rival Mitt Romney. "Don't the Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?" he asked. While the full answer is a little more complicated than that, it turns out that they do. Yet Huckabee was raked over the coals for asking the question. Now here the media is asking Obama even more pointed questions about the statements of his long-time pastor.

So maybe the national media should tell us what it thinks the rules are. Are the doctrines and beliefs of a candidate for public office relevant or not? Or since it seems clear that they want to discourage the idea that they are relevant in the case of Romney and encourage the idea that they are relevant in the case of Obama, perhaps they can tell us under what circumstances it is or is not OK to question a candidate over the beliefs and practices of their church.

Until they can come up with an answer that makes more sense, I am going to continue to assume that what faith a person chooses says something fundamental about who they are and what they believe. I will also assume that what one believes or doesn't believe, matters. It will affect their decision making on some level. Because of that, I am going to continue to consider the "personal" religious beliefs of anyone who seeks authority over me relevant when casting my vote. This may not take a shallow or obvious form- for example I would not vote for a shyster who is always talking up Jesus but whose policies are against what the Bible teaches about government. Still, it is a factor. What one believes matters. At least until the media can reasonably explain to us why and when it shouldn't.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Obama's Pastor Sanitizes Website

Excerpts from article below from World Net Daily

A black Chicago church attended by Democrat presidential frontrunner Barack Obama has removed from the "About Us" page of its website an entire section outlining a radical belief system for blacks, WND has learned.

Trinity United Church of Christ, which describes itself as "unashamedly black," drew fire last week after inflammatory sermons by its senior pastor were broadcast on cable TV news.

Obama responded he was shocked to hear the profane anti-American and anti-white rhetoric delivered by his Rev. Jeremiah Wright and strongly objected to it.While critics say the sermons reflect militantly segregationist views, Obama says they were taken out of context and do not reflect the broader message of his preacher and church.

Until recently, however, Trinity's website outlined a controversial code of ethics written by blacks for blacks called the "Black Value System."It asks members to commit their time, money and talents to the black community, black businesses, black institutions and black political leaders. The program also demands black members disavow "the pursuit of middleclassness."

The 160-word section has since been deleted from the About Us page, replaced by videotaped testimonials from church members extolling the virtues of the church, including a white official from the parent United Church of Christ who said she feels welcome at predominantly black Trinity."

These black ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever blacks are gathered," the original webpage said.

For rest of article and entire text of the section before it was redacted:

Sunday, March 16, 2008

The Severance Tax and Your Wallet

Mike Beebe: Is this man bluffing?

To hear some tell it, there is a "near consensus" on what the natural gas severance tax in this state ought to be, and most critically, how it is to be spent. Hmmmm. No one asked me. Did anyone ask you? I didn't think so. The "near consensus" must be among Governor Beebe's staff, because it surely does not exist among the voters of this state. Most of them probably have not formed an opinion on what the tax should be set at, much less how it should be spent. If that is you, then please permit me to brief you....

First: The Fayetteville Shale (which is actually spread over a number of North Arkansas counties) has the potential to be an incredible economic bonanza to our state. With your permission, I'd like to make a fairy tale analogy- we are like the family that found that they had a goose which laid golden eggs. The natural gas bonanza is estimated by a University of Arkansas study to pump $17.9 billion dollars into our economy over the next five years. It should create 11,000 new jobs and pump over 1.8 billion dollars in new tax money into the state over that five year period, excluding an additional potential 150 million in increased property taxes (because we will have more property, not because the rates go up).

All that assumes that taxes on the 80 or more companies lined up to shift more resources here remains at their current super-low level. If taxes go higher, costs go higher and the companies will not follow through on quite as many projects as they did. The ones on the margin will not get done.

So Governor Beebe claims "the drilling companies" are coming to him and agreeing to his quick phase-in 5% tax out of fear it could be higher if the issue goes to a ballot initiative. What effect would raising the tax (it amounts to 3/10ths of 1% right now) to five percent have? Well that is a problem for us, because so many business decisions are made "at the margin". A five percent loss of revenue can be a disproportionate deal-killer to a businessman who has a hundred different options he can invest in. According to the same UA study, a 5% severance tax would reduce investment by 13%. That is to say the non-government economy (that is us folks) would lose $2.4 billion over the next five years. Over 2,000 jobs would be lost. My back-of-the-envelope calculations tell me that at this rate, $234 million of tax revenues would also be lost.

So why would Governor Beebe, and so many county judges and mayors, want to increase this particular tax by 1,600%? For the same reason that the family in the "Goose that laid Golden Eggs" fairy tale cut the goose open- simple greed. They wanted more and wanted it now. In the story, the family did not find any more golden eggs inside the goose, and they didn't get their one golden egg a day anymore either.

While we may loose $234 million/5 = ~ $46 million a year in taxes because of companies reducing their profile here, the tax increase will raise about $100 million a year once it is phased in according to this Jason Wiest article which I will have more to say about later on. The net difference is $54 million dollars a year for the state government to have, at a cost to our state non-government economy (you and me folks) of $2.4 billion/5 = $480,000,000 dollars a year.

What this means is that if the U of A study is close to right, Mike Beebe's tax increase will cost the rest of us almost ten dollars for every one dollar extra it gets state government. If they were way off about the negative effect it would have on the companies willingness to make new investment, say off by 100%, then Governor Beebe and the Good Ole boys will only be taking about five dollars out of our collective wallet for every extra one they get themselves. If the study was wrong by about 1,000% then we will just about break even.

Guys, I don't think much of our university system sometimes, but they are not going to be that wrong. Beebe and the Good Ole Boys want to split this goose open, or at least see how much of its blood they can drain. The gas play is rich, and we are going to get helped by it- this tax increase may not kill the goose, but it is going to make it sicker than it was. Instead of a golden egg every day, we may have to settle for one a week just so the good ole boys can get their claws in on some of it faster.

(I am waaaay long here and we have a long way to go, so it "SUNDAY" below and scroll down for the rest of it, if you care to.)

Planned Parenthood Director Wants Money from Racist to be Earmarked to Kill "Black Baby"

Planned Parenthood got over 900 million dollars in revenue last year, including over 200 million in donations and a similar amount from you in me in the form of money from the government. The report was filed by a UCLA pro-life student newspaper, The Advocate. What they have uncovered through phone calls to Planned Parenthoods in several states is a pattern of willingness to accept money specifically to eliminate babies of a particular race. In a way, this is not "news". PP founder Margaret Sanger was an avid eugenicist and to this day PP aborts the babies of minorities at a disproportionate rate.

I have always maintained that PP is an organization of barbarians in designer clothes.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Mexican Consulate Official in California" "This Has Been and Will Be Mexico"

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Gay Episcopal Bishop "Drama Queen"

"It's All About Me and My Feelings" Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson
MSNBC ( reports that the first openly-homosexual Bishop in the Episcopalian Church, V. Gene Robinson, has rejected a limited role in a conference of Anglican Church leaders.

A brief history lesson, the Anglican Church was once the Roman Catholic Church of England, but the Catholics lost a power struggle with English King Henry the VIII. The original trouble came about when King Henry wished to put away his wife because she did not bear him a son. The Roman Catholic Church would not go along with it, and Henry managed a hostile takeover. Since then, Anglicans keep mostly Roman Catholic tradition, but answer to other figures, such as the political leaders in their individual nations. King Henry went on to marry six wives, four of them eliminated through annulment and execution. By the time of his death, he had prompted over 70,000 political executions.

I guess my point here, and I say this as a protestant, is that there was a whole lot of unrighteousness in the very root and founding of the Anglican Church (the Church of England gave root to the Anglican Church once the British Empire spread world-wide). A willful man who was wicked in his sexuality (King Henry) brought that church into being, and the very same kind of man ("Bishop" Robinson) now threatens to destroy it. And because he is a willful and wicked man, like Henry he does not care what consequences his actions have on others. It is all about him. I put the title "Bishop" in quotes as it applies to Robinson because I don't recognize the legitimacy of homosexual "Bishops" anymore than I recognize the legitimacy of homosexual "marriage".

According to MSNBC, Anglican leaders had been working out a compromise with their American branch, the Episcopal Church. They had said Robinson could "be present" in the conference Marketplace, or convention hall, where exhibitors and church agencies set up stalls, and that he could participate in one "high profile" event, such as a news conference, at the 20-day summit. He would be excluded from the private meetings at the once-a-decade Anglican Lambeth conference. The exhibit hall is open to the public, while the Lambeth discussions are private.

That was not good enough for the Drama Queen. Robinson told the bishops in Texas that ever since he got word of the proposal late last Friday, "I have been in considerable pain." He said he had hoped to participate in Bible study and small group discussions with other bishops.

"I am dismayed and sickhearted that we can't sit around a table, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and study Scripture together," he said. "It makes me wonder, if we can't sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of Communion do we have and what are we trying to save?"

V. Gene Robinson flaunts his immorality and expects everyone else to accommodate it. Two thousand years of Church Tradition and Four Thousand years of Divine Revelation must yield before the tender feelings of V. Gene Robinson. God Himself must change His Word or V. Gene Robinson will be "in considerable pain" and it will be all God's fault! I don't say he is the only one who does this, it is all too common. The deacon who dumps his wife and then shows up with his new honey on Sunday and expects everyone to adapt is the heterosexual version of this same arrogant self-centered malady. Everyone has to change except the sinner or they are not "loving" according to The New Gospel of the High Church of the Holy Tolerance. It is human nature to try not to take sin seriously. God sent His Son to die that we might understand the seriousness of it to a Holy God, but even that sacrifice counts for nothing to wicked clergy determined to trivialize sin.

Robinson wants a Bible study? How about 1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not (even) to eat.

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?

But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Californians Want PERMANENT Protection Against Offshore Drilling

Brazil Discovered s Large Oil Reserve In Deep Waters of Atlantic
Liberals have kept the US from building any new oil refineries in the US since 1976
Even though there are abundant reserves of natural gas and oil off the California coast, California produces only 16 percent of its total needs.

With 4.00 a gallon gasoline on the horizon and the ethanol policy bringing extremely high food prices and threatening to starve the world, good old liberal California is making another effort to insure no drilling for oil will ever take place on their North Coast. The environment and animals are far more important than the welfare of people. (Like minded liberals have kept the US from building any new oil refineries in the US since 1976) A federal moratorium on oil and gas leasing has already kept drilling out of much of California's offshore waters for 27 years, but extending it requires a yearly congressional vote. 1 But California liberal environmentalists want even more.

Several congressional attempts have been made to lift the annual moratorium off California's coasts to allow drilling, and liberals have tried to make the moratorium permanent so there will never be any drilling there. "In the battle against offshore oil drilling, Sonoma County for the first time has cleared a congressional hurdle on the path toward protecting its rugged coastline forever." 2 (Same as 1 above) The bill, H.R. 1187, which would expand the boundaries of two national marine sanctuaries, to add 1,740 nautical square miles of protected ocean, is scheduled to be discussed in committee tomorrow, March 12, 08. 3. The only permanent protection against offshore drilling and exploration is through national marine sanctuary status. 4 Same as 1 above

"There are already 13 national marine sanctuaries in 11 U.S. states and territories. ..The sanctuaries cover more than 18,000 square miles of ocean." But liberals want more, so they are trying to "expand" the areas which would be easier to do than asking for a new marine sanctuary. 5.

"Thirty-six leases were bought off the coast by oil companies for about $1.25 billion in the 1960s, '70s and '80s but were never developed. The federal Minerals Management Service, which oversees oil and gas development in federal waters, estimates that they contain about 512 million barrels of oil." 6

In 2007 Brazil Discovered s Large Oil Reserve In Deep Waters of Atlantic which may hold 5 billion to 8 billion barrels of crude oil and natural-gas reserves. The potential new deposits may raise Brazil's oil reserves from the world's 17th biggest to among the top 10. 7.Who knows how much oil we may have discovered if the environmentalists would have let us drill in these areas. But instead they dream up a vision like ethanol. The result: the oil market and food market are now competing for the corn product and causing food prices to rise along with fuel prices, driving more and more people into poverty.

At a time when people are in such stress over these gas and food prices, the people and our Congressmen should rise up in indignation over this matter and vote against H.R. 1187 as well as vote to open up oil drilling off the coast of California.

"According to the California Energy Commission, the state [California] consumes over 6.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas every year. Even though there are abundant reserves of natural gas and oil off the California coast, California produces only 16 percent of its total needs. Of that 16 percent, only 2 percent is produced from offshore drilling. The rest of the state's voracious appetite for natural gas is supplied by: Rocky Mountain states 10 percent; Canada 28 percent; and the Southwest 46 percent. 8

It is time to quit giving special treatment to California, to the environmentalists, and to putting animals above people.

For documentation to this article go to this link:

Monday, March 10, 2008

Ethanol Policy Threatens to Starve The World - Typifies Government Control

Ethanol Policy Threatens To Starve The World
How Ethanol is Contributing to Poverty & Hunger
Politics Gone Crazy

" Filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn -- roughly enough calories to feed one person for a year." 1

"Powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people." 2

World Net Daily published an article with this title, "Ethanol policy threatens to starve the world." Following are excerpts from different articles and organizations that substantiate this claim. 3

"We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history," the EPI [Economic Policy Institute] proclaimed in January. 'The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before.'" 4.

But the biggest problem with ethanol is that it steals vast swaths of land that might be better used for growing food. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs titled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," University of Minnesota economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out that filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn -- roughly enough calories to feed one person for a year. 5.

A 2007 report from International Food Policy Research Institute, or IFPRI, concludes that "Biofuel production currently adversely affects the poor through price-level and price-volatility effects." IFPRI's report also noted, "Since the beginning of 2000, butter and milk prices have tripled, and poultry prices have almost doubled." 6.

How Ethanol is Contributing to Poverty & Hunger (taken from "Ethanol Policy Threatens to Starve the World.") 7

Across the globe, people are discovering it's a new contributor to world hunger. Led by the United States, governments are paying companies billions to make ethanol from corn and other crops. The result: these crops are diverted from the food supply, creating artificial shortages and higher prices.

Even record harvests haven't suppressed food prices. Instead, prices are soaring to all-time highs.

Corn that traded around $2 a bushel just two years ago is now well over $5 a bushel. The impact ripples through the food chain of milk, butter, eggs, flour, pasta and everything else, because dairy cattle, beef cattle, poultry and swine depend on the corn for their feed. When chicken feed doesn't cost chicken feed anymore, then neither does anything else.

Other grains, like wheat, are also at record highs because farmers are planting less wheat and more corn, thanks to the ethanol incentives. Less supply, plus more world demand, means higher prices for wheat products, too, from flour to bread to pasta.

Full-scale food riots may arise in some parts of the world, as more and more grain is diverted into fuel production. The Earth Policy Institute reports that ethanol-related food protests occurred last year in Mexico, Italy, Pakistan and Indonesia. A price-driven stampede killed three and injured 31 at a supermarket in China.

EPI's president, Lester R. Brown, says, "We're putting the supermarket in competition with the corner filling station for the output of the farm. The result is that more people will go hungry." 8

For rest of article and documentation, see this link or click Monday below. Or if sent here, just scroll down.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

A House Divided in Scott County

Rep. Shirley Walters (R) from Scott County

Representative Shirley Walters is a Republican whose district includes Scott and part of Sebastian Counties. She has noted that she is the first Republican to ever hold the seat. She is now facing term limits. A rumor began that her husband Bill was going to run in her place- as a Democrat. She denied knowing about him seeking the office as a Democrat until recently- a denial that was met with some incredulous responses in GOP circles. It now appears that her husband will run as a Democrat because "it will allow him to get more done" in a state legislature dominated by Democrats with a Democrat for a Governor.

Naturally the Republican party of Arkansas feels threatened by a move that could cost them one of "their" seats. It is said that Mrs. Walters has ambitions of running for State Senate in 2010, presumably as a Republican, but one does start to wonder. It is one of the few remaining Republican-leaning areas in the state, and a very conservative Democrat named John Paul Wells is already positioning himself to run for that seat on the Democratic side.

There are so many struggles going on here that it is hard to track them all. GOP State Chairman Dennis Milligan had hopes of recruiting more candidates to office. Instead, he is having a hard time keeping the seats that are currently held by Republicans. There is some indication that the GOP is not taking this lying down- a local businessman has indicated he will run for Walter's seat on the GOP side and rumors are flying that they won't support Shirley Walters should she run for that Senate seat in 2010. If these are efforts to enforce party discipline, they could work or they could backfire and be seen as petty and vindictive. That is why the normal (sadly) way this goes down in our current degraded state of politics is that they whisper the threats in private but deny them in public.

But what about Shirley Walters and her role in this? All indications are that she wants the Republican nomination for the Senate seat, but is a switch in her future too? Would the very liberal Mike Beebe (I know some would argue that, but they're wrong) prefer Shirley Walters to the conservative Democrat John Paul Wells? What was really said at the meeting that Shirley Walters had with Mike Beebe?

Unfortunately what we mostly have on this one are questions. The answers will have to wait.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

OBAMA: Dump Defense of Marriage Act & 12 Other Promises to Homosexuals

The Defense of Marriage Act is a law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that says the federal government and individual states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if it is recognized by another state.

According to Alex Okrent's Blog and World Net Daily, Senator Obama just released an open letter concerning LGBT equality in America. Evidently his letter is designed to pull homosexual votes away from Senator Clinton by being more liberal than she is. One sentence in the letter reads, "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate."

Below are some of the promises Obama makes in his letter to homosexuals.

*Full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
(Pledges to place the weight of his presidency behind hate crime laws. (I always knew hate crimes were really designed for homosexuals)
*A fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
*Use president's bully pulpit to treat homosexuals with full equality in adoption laws.
*Allow homosexual marriage, domestic partnerships, and/or civil unions (he stated that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to enact laws to implement these.)
*Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military policy for homosexuals.
*Address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Obama said in November that he would double foreign assistance for AIDS from $25 billion to $50 billion by 2012.
*Sex education programs on condoms.
*Lift the federal ban on needle exchange.
*Confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. (We all know what that means – No more discrimination like the use of mom and dad in textbooks (like California) and a ban on freedom of speech)
*Promote distribution of condoms by local government.
*Give same-sex couples the same rights and obligations asmarried couples in our immigration system (allows unmarried "permanent partners" of U.S. citizens to obtain permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses.)

According to World Net Daily, in the run-up to the recent Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama bought full-page ads in homosexual-oriented newspapers in Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas and Houston.

Link to this letter from Obama on the blog -
Other related links: Hillary Gets Standing Ovation at Rick Warren's Summit on AIDS World Net Daily Article on this letter by Obama to LGBT

Keyes to Run for President Under Constitution Party Banner?

So says Nick Curran the Radar blog in NY. Curran was privy to a conference call where Keyes described staying in the Republican Party as "an occasion of sin".

In my, and his, younger days I supported Keyes. I don't know whether he has changed, I have, or both, but he now strikes me as shrill and pompous. I know there are times to be forceful, but he has been over the top even when staying below the top would do. But that is style. The substance is that I (and more importantly the Constitution Party) favor withdrawal from the United Nations and an end to America as "globo cop". Keyes has taken the opposite positions in his now standard bombastic fashion.

That even effects economic and civil rights issues. Governments don't shrink when on a "war footing". You can't have an endless war against a vague enemy and expect to reduce the size and scope of government.

Despite the differences, Keyes is said to be "prayerfully considering" such a move.

Friday, March 07, 2008

Home Schooling Found Unlawful by California Court

Sign a petition asking the state Supreme Court to "depublish" the case, which means to apply the case to the family involved — not to all California families at this link:

Listen to discussion on this on James Dobson program today.

See this link for article by James Dobson on this issue:

Following are excerpts from the article by Pacific Justice "Home Schooling Found Unlawful by California Court of Appeal" at this link

In a stunning decision affecting thousands of families in California, the California Court of Appeal has issued an opinion finding no legal right to home school. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey whose opinion was joined by the other two members of the appellate panel. The opinion was issued February 28, 2008, in a case titled In re Rachel L., which reversed a Superior Court Judge, Stephen Marpet, who found that "parents have a constitutional right to school their children in their own home." …..

"The scope of this decision by the appellate court is breathtaking. It not only attacks traditional home schooling, but also calls into question home schooling through charter schools and teaching children at home via independent study through public and private schools," stated Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute "If not reversed, the parents of the more than 166,000 students currently receiving an education at home will be subject to criminal sanctions," he continued.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Huckabee Out, Hillary Back, Paul Holds

I am running short of time this morning but the bottom line is, Mike Huckabee has dropped out of the race after losing Texas to John McCain. It seems like the GOP base wants the race to be over.

Hillary won in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas. Obama won only vote-poor Vermont. Her margin in Ohio was particularly strong. Controversy remains in Texas, where team Hillary fears that her enemies will use caucus procedures to undo her close electoral victory there by assigning delegates out of proportion to the vote totals.

Ron Paul has not dropped out of the race, but his focus of late had been holding onto his congressional seat rather than the Presidential nomination. Many high-ranking republicans had been irritated by Paul's actions, and this encouraged someone to jump into the primary against him. Still, Paul retained his Congressional seat with a 2-1 win over his primary challenger yesterday.

Monday, March 03, 2008

Barack Obama and the Emergent Church Heresy

The package looks and sounds SOOOOOO good, so what is inside must be good too, right?

23 minute audio file
where we examine (through sound bites of Obama)some of the Senator's claims about his Christianity in the light of his politics.

McCain's Citizenship Issue: Would be Serious, if We Took The Constitution Seriously Anymore

I was wondering when the Democrat's media organs would bring this up- the New York Times reports that John McCain may not be eligible to become President. If you will read the link you will see that it is not just a case of biased media, but rather an ongoing constitutional question that has come up many times in our nation's history.

John McCain was born on a U.S. Military installation in the Panama canal zone. That area was under a sort of long-term lease to the United States, much like Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba. The Constitution states that the President must be a "Natural Born" U.S. citizen. There are two kinds of citizens, "Natural Born" and "Naturalized". A straightforward reading of the law is that children born to U.S. citizens on foreign soil are "naturalized" citizens by virtue of the citizenship of their parents.

The original intent of the "Natural Born" provision was to prevent one whose loyalties were mixed from becoming President of the United States. One might argue that the Constitution was written before the United States had a global military presence in over 100 nations around the world and that because of McCain's military service he should not be questioned on that issue regardless of the technicalities.

To that I would reply that all laws are technicalities, and except for arguments from original intent, anyone who respects the rule of law should insist that the strong be submitted to its provisions and not just the weak or unpopular. I also remind the reader that it is quite right that the Founders never anticipated an American Global Empire. By their own writings they would be opposed to it. One can easily see them supporting use of this provision against the offspring of our military garrison's in other nations, not only as a part of discouraging empire-seeking but also because they were students of history. There is little historical support for the idea that children of military officers born and raised on foreign soil have the same connection with the homeland as those born and raised in the homeland.

That brings me to John McCain in particular. The Founders banned making non-natural born citizens into Presidents because they feared such men would have divided loyalties. John McCain seems to be exactly that kind of man which the Founders enacted this provision to stop. McCain shows every indication of being an open-borders globalist whose ties to Central America, the land of his birth, are so strong that he advocates polices that are favorable to them at the expense of the citizens of the United States.

If anyone took the original intent of the Constitution seriously anymore then John McCain would have an eligibility problem becoming President of the United States. As it stands, no one does, so he doesn't have a problem- WE DO.

Congress to Grant "Retroactive Blanket Immunity" to Telecoms

A worthless scrap of paper? Bipartisan effort to nullify the constitution's protections from warrantless searches.


It seems that House Democrats are close to caving and giving "blanket retroactive immunity" to big telecommunications companies who broke privacy laws in turning your phone data over to the Bush administration.

The Constitution says that the executive branch needs a warrant (from the judicial branch), which describes what they are looking for, in order to search you or your effects. A special type of court was set up (FISA) just to churn out warrants for the executive branch. They could even collect the data first and then ask for the warrant the next day! Even that was not enough for the Republocrat statists who want complete monitoring over the lives of their serfs.

The Bush administration (though the next Democratic administration will do the same thing) was not even content with that minimal amount of judicial oversight. They pressed the telecoms to release even more data to them on broad fishing expeditions. At least one company refused to comply, citing legal concerns. The others quickly turned the private records of their "valued customers" over to their "partners in government". Now those companies face lawsuits. President Bush has insisted the companies who sold you out be given blanket retroactive community for any and all crimes they might have committed in that process.

The government and their partners in the global corporate media constantly hit the fear button to try to scare us into setting aside the constitution. My fear is not being killed by Muslim terrorists so much as living under a police state in which their are no longer any meaningful protections for our civil liberties. We march toward fascism with the full approval of citizen-sheep who are obsessing over distant threats while ignoring near ones. We are not "safe" if we turn over our freedoms to the government, because in the last 60 years more people have been killed and oppressed by their own government than they have in wars with other governments.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Onion Network News - Diebold Leaks 08 Election Results!

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

The only thing not funny about it is that it rings too true to joke about!