Odds for Upset: 8192: 1

I don't support either the socialist or the fascist in this election, (I am voting for an unknown named Chuck Baldwin) but many people have wanted to know my take on the presidential race.

My take is that Obama is ahead, but McCain has a chance. His odds are dim, but he is not a million-to-one longshot. Instead, the odds against McCain/Palin are 8192/1, give or take a few.

How do I get that? Well, to win, McCain needs to win 10 states that are close enough to be in the "toss up" category. In other words, he needs to win 10 coin tosses in a row. The odds of that are 2048 to one. In addition, he must pull off the upset in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the state to watch on election night, along with Florida. Those are two east coast bell-weather states that will be announcing early. If McCain wins both of them, he really has a chance. If he loses one of them, his odds go up to that million-to-one or more category.

McCain's odds in Pennsylvania may be a lot better than the socialist media gives him credit for. I rate his chances as 1 in 4. You see, as an anonymous associate of mine pointed out, poll samples are taken by ratios. They are factoring in a "surge" of Democratic registrations in PA. Because of that, most polls are sampling a larger than usual number of Democrats. The problem is a little thing called "Operation Chaos". Rush Limbaugh told supporters in the late primary states to register as Democrats and vote Hillary. PA is one of those states where this effect was more pronounced, and so the "surge" of Democrat registrations may largely have been conservatives looking to play the spoiler. This can skew polling data.

This might also be a state where the "Bradly Effect" is strong. They tell the pollsters that they are going to vote Obama or they are undecided because they have taken heat for being "racist".

Both Obama and McCain act like PA is still in play. That ought to tell you something. Don't listen to the media, follow the money.

The odds are good that we will be looking at President-elect Obama come next Tuesday night. The odds are good, but not unbeatable.

Court Rules it OK to Pray in Jesus' Name

The 11th Circuit Court has ruled that it is OK for a county government to open its meetings with prayers in Jesus' name, so long as other constitutional protections are met. They said courts should not "parse the content" of prayers.

In one sense it is a victory for freedom of religious expression, but even the principle that the federal courts have standing to rule in this case is an extra-constitutional usurpation of state power. Further, it re-enforces the abhorrent doctrine that the federal courts are the sole arbiters of what religious practices are allowed.

I believe it was Daniel Webster or James Madison who said that "the very definition of tyranny is when all powers are gathered together in one place". By this sensible standard it is clear that current judicial practice is religious tyranny, even if our black-robed masters lengthened our leash a bit in this one case.

Even a child could read the constitution and see that this view of things is wrong. The first amendment specifically says that "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is crystal clear that this amendment was a restriction on the power of the FEDERAL government, and not that of the several states.

The amendment does not restrict the power of the several state governments in any way, either to practice religion or to ban such practice. Instead, it prevents the federal government from meddling by prohibiting Congress from making any laws in this sphere. Where the federal legislative can make no law, the federal executive can take no action, there being no law to enforce. Likewise, there should be no law for the judiciary to interpret. Were the Constitution respected, the federal courts should acknowledge that they have no standing in the case of restrictions on the religious practices of the people, or their state and local governments. Unfortunately, the Federal government of the United States does not adhere to the constitution.

The amendment has been twisted to make the federal power the sole authority to determine what religious practices are allowed in states and localities by the people. This turns the intent of the amendment completely on its head. Its whole purpose was to keep the federal power out of the people's business when it comes to practices of faith- including practices within local governments.

State legislatures can and did have their own state churches for many years after the constitution took effect, and it was never seen as a violation of the first amendment of the federal constitution. Since that time, most states have enacted similar provisions in their constitutions, and that is the rightful place to determine what local government behaviors cross the line vis-a-vi religious liberty.

The idea that Washington D.C. is the place where all matters are to be decided is against the spirit, history, and constitution of this nation.

Against Referred Amendment 1

The swing vote in all future elections? ******************************************

I had commented earlier about the possibility of voting in favor of Referred Amendment One. After doing some research and thinking it over, I ask my fellow citizens to vote AGAINST Referred Amendment 1.

I thought it was simply a question of letting the legislature make rules for who can be an election official or a poll worker. Currently, the State Constitution sets those requirements. In most or even all other states the legislature can do that. Because I know that poll workers can be hard to find, and are very essential people to have, I leaned in favor of the amendment. There was also marginal value in removing the language about voters having a receipt for the non-existent poll tax.

What leads me to reject the amendment as bad for Arkansas is its last provision. I believe this was a major reason for the thing even being referred to us for a vote. The measure would remove the Constitution's prohibition against "idiots and insane persons" from being eligible voters. I don't want the elections in this state to be decided by idiots and insane persons. In practical effect, I suspect that the social workers who care for them in whatever institution they are in will coach their votes. Indeed, this is already happening in states that lack our common-sense restrictions on voting. I don't want the elections of this state to be decided by government-subsidized social workers either.

I understand that the ruling class likes voters who are easy to manipulate and genuflect to the elites (hence their preference for illegal aliens over their countrymen) but this is really too much. The average middle class citizen would have to be either an idiot or insane to be in favor of a proposal that would allow their government to be determined by idiots and insane people!

Secure Arkansas: Question 1 Violates Property Rights

WE MUST SECURE OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS NOW.

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
~ John Adams

We have received news regarding an extremely disturbing Bill that Arkansans will be voting on November 4 regarding water restriction. My question to you is this:

Do YOU want an unelected bureaucratic agency (The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) ) to be granted eminent domain power to take title to your private lakes, stock ponds, irrigation reservoirs, and certain rivers?

If not, vote NO to the Referred Question #1 on your ballot on November 4 (Act 631 of 2007, known as HB2339). If this passes, other language of Act 631 which does not appear on your ballot will become enabling legislation for ARNC eminent domain power to take title to certain private water sources for any purpose that they deem important!

The ballot face of this Referred Question #1 discusses a $300 million bond for water projects, but it doesn't tell the whole story!
Click this link to access the whole wording of the Act: http://www.votenaturally.org/2008_elections/Act_631_of_2007.pdf

MOST ALARMING is that the State Board of Directors of Arkansas Farm Bureau has advised Farm Bureau Members to support this measure, which could greatly jeopardize our private property rights! Farm Bureau Members AND all Arkansas citizens should IMMEDIATELY contact their local Farm Bureau Leaders and demand accountability for this STATE LEVEL decision - demanding that the State Office immediately issue an effective statewide reversal of policy regarding Referred Question 1, advising their Members to "VOTE NO".

If we don't 'burn the phone lines up', one of the biggest voting blocs in Arkansas (Farm Bureau) will vote "Yes" on this, and will cause us to lose our private property rights to our water! However, if we do a little arm-twisting (just like we had to with Attorney General McDaniel to get him to certify our ballot initiative), and we convince Farm Bureau to change their policy and oppose this Act, they will advise their Members to vote "NO"! Please call your local Farm Bureau right now!

After you contact your local Farm Bureau, call the State Office of Farm Bureau to OPPOSE Referred Question #1. 1-888-909-5949

Then, please forward this email and CALL as many people as you know - RIGHT NOW! - to help in this Action Alert! We have to do something NOW! PLEASE don't put it off!

As ever, we're still concentrating on the illegal alien problem here in Arkansas, but we absolutely can't afford to overlook this Bill. We're continuing to fight against the illegal alien problem and to secure our property rights, water rights, college campuses, state-funded benefits, etc.

"The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty." ~ Arthur Lee

If you do not agree, please just delete.

Thank you,


Jeannie Burlsworth
Chairman, Secure Arkansas

Five State Referendums on November Ballot/How I Will Vote

Several people asked me to tell them how I was going to vote on these referendums so here it is.

Our General Election voting ballot in Arkansas in 2008 on November 4 includes five state referendums. Two of them are referred to voters by the people, and the other three are referred to voters by the General Assembly. I have been asked by several people how I am going to vote. I am voting YES on only one of them and am voting NO on the rest of them.

Vote YES
• Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, Official Title: An Act Providing That An Individual Who Is Cohabiting Outside of a Valid Marriage May Not Adopt Or Be A Foster Parent Of A Child Less Than Eighteeen Years.

This Act is specifically aimed at preventing homosexuals from adopting or being a foster parent and is sponsored by Arkansas Family Council with Jerry Cox as Director. According to Family Council's website,

"This act seeks to blunt a homosexual agenda that has used the shortage of adoptive or foster care homes in other states as a means of advancing their social agenda. Laws have been passed in eight states that support the homosexual agenda when it comes to the adoption or foster care of children. Arkansas has no law to prevent homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are adopting children and this will continue until a law is passed."

Arkansas has already become a magnet for gay surrogacy. Arkansas Surrogacy law is among the most liberal in the US, much more liberal than New York and European countries. See this link for an article on this subject:
http://www.wpaag.org/Surrogacy%20Law%20in%20AR%20magnet%20for%20gay%20surrogacy.htm

Vote NO
• Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 would require the General Assembly to meet annually. The constitution requires them to meet every two years. I fully agree with this quote: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." Once every two years is often enough to go through that fearful time. Besides it will only cost Arkansans more to have the legislature meet every year.

In 2005 legislators introduced a total of 3,176 bills; and in no year in recent history have they introduced less than 2,643 bills. I know for us conservatives the 60 days (usually extended by a number of days) when the Legislature is in session is the most intense and dangerous times in our lives. We are constantly working to ward off all the laws the liberals come up with like trying to pass the Equal Rights Amendment from last session, hate crime laws designed for homosexuals, and laws to give in-state tution and scholarships to illegal aliens for example.

For rest of article on the referendums on the ballot see this link: http://www.wpaag.org/Ballot%20Initiatives%20(5)%20%20in%20AR%202008.htm or click Sunday below, or scroll down if sent here by link.

Should AR Legislature Meet Every Year? Amendment 2 on AR Ballot

Amendment 2 on the Nov 4, 08 Arkansas General Election Ballot

Below are excerpts from an article by Arkansas Representative Dan Greenberg opposing Amendment 2 on the ballot this year. It is one of the best newspaper articles I have seen in a long time by a legislator. The article eloquently defends the conservative philosophy. The entire article can be read at this link: Believe me, it is worth your time to read the entire article. http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Perspective/241521/

"Amendment 2 isn’t getting discussed much, but it is without a doubt the biggest and most consequential change in Arkansas government in my lifetime. Let me tell you why making this change is a terrible idea. . . ."

"Annual sessions will make it harder for our representatives to be citizens of their districts. Annual sessions will create tremendous pressure for pay increases and higher travel allowances for legislators, who will find it harder and harder to have real jobs that, every year, allow four months time off. . ."

"Annual sessions will also lead to big government in Arkansas. Political scientists have demonstrated what everybody knows: the longer legislatures are in session, the more legislation they produce—which generally leads to bigger, more expensive and more complex government. States with full-time legislatures generally rank near the top of the list of biggest per-person taxers and spenders. . ."

"Anyone who genuinely advocates government that is smaller, cheaper and closer to the people must oppose this change to our state Constitution. . ."

"Permitting our legislature to spend twice as much time in session will be a gateway drug to big government—and a recipe for even more uncompetitive elections and unresponsive politicians. A vote for Amendment 2 runs the risk of producing state legislators as disconnected as McGovern admitted he became. . ."

"I hope Arkansas votes against this Amendment and for our current system of biennial sessions, which gives as much time as possible to lawmakers to be representatives of their districts—not just representatives of that huge marble dome in the center of Little Rock. . ."

(Dan Greenberg is a lawyer and state Representative in District 31 and is also the son of Paul Greenberg)

The Others

The University of Arkansas' Annual Poll showed some interesting data for the four congressional districts.

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?
• Republican 20% 23% 30% 21%
• Democrat 38% 35% 30% 36%
• independent 34% 33% 32% 32%
• other 6% 7% 6% 9%
• don’t know/refused 3% 3% 2% 2%

What surprised me most about the data was the amount of people who appear to belong to some "minor" party. Not an "independent" mind you, that was listed as a separate choice, and independents usually had about 33% of the total. I am talking about the "other" column which represents those who identify themselves as neither Republican, Democrat, or Independent, and did in fact give a response. That response could only be some other party such as the Libertarian, Constitution, or Green party.

In the 4th district, those who identified themselves as "other" party were nine percent of the vote, versus 21% who ID as Republican and 36% who self-ID as Democrat. That is to say that members of "other" parties, even in a poll where their party was not listed by name, were equal in number to almost one half the total of those who ID as Republicans and even equal to one fourth the number who ID as Democrats in this heavily Democratic district.

The 3rd Congressional district broke out as evenly split between Democrats and Republicans at 30% each. Independents took 32% of the total and "other" political party took 6%. That is to say that in the 3rd CD members of "other" parties are equal in number to one-fifth of either the Democrat or Republican parties. Does that surprise you? It does me. I would have thought that voter ID for other parties combined would be outnumbered by Republicans 30-1 and by Democrats 50-1. It turns out that the real total is more like 4 or 5 to one.

Mark my words: the Republicrats can't keep forcing all political expression to pass through their two private clubs much longer. We are going to see a new movement arise or we will see a police state that oppresses "unauthorized" political expression.

Neo-Con Whisper Campaign Against Palin

"Palin's going rogue" whisper the Bushite handlers who are finding out that Sarah Palin is not so easy to handle.

In this case "going rogue" seems to mean that she is done being their sock-puppet and is going back to the common-sense kind of answers that made her America's most popular Governor. I wondered how long she could stand being surrounded and isolated by neo-con "advisers". You know, the same types that made the name of Bush what it is today..... It sounds like she has decided to start speaking her own mind instead of their spoon-fed lines, and in response these "gallant gentleman" have started an anonymous whisper campaign against her.

Folks, I said at the start if she really was any good she would soon get fed up with McCain and the neocons. I am glad to hear- from them- that she has.

Judge Dismisses Suit On Obama's Citizenship

I won't link to the Micheal Hinkelman article because it is so ham-handedly in the tank for Obama that it is not worthy of a link. Still the gist of it is that a Democrat named Phillip Berg filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. citizenship, and thus eligibility for President, of Barack Obama. Berg claimed that he has testimony from three Kenyan relatives of Obama that said the airlines would not let Obama's mother fly back to the states so close to giving birth, so she hopped the first plane to Hawaii after his birth in Kenya. There she filed a Certificate of Live Birth, and put an announcement in the paper. Usually, a COLB is filed by the staff of the Doctor who does the delivery. In this case it appears Obama's mother filed it.

Obama could have ended the suit immediately simply by producing his actual birth certificate, which he claimed in his book "Dreams of My Father", to possess. Instead, his lawyers fought it every step of the way for over a month. Berg also produced documentation that Obama was claimed as an Indonesian citizen by his adopted step-father.

The Obama campaign argued that Berg did not have standing to sue, and that the charges were not worthy of a response. Does that make sense to you when the charges should be so easy to refute? Me neither. Still, judge R. Barclay Surrick must believe in change, because the judge ruled that Berg could not show "actual damages" if Obama was unconstitutionally elected and that Berg's accusations were not credible enough to be worthy of an answer. No damages? I wonder if judge Surrick has any memory of an oath he/she took when elevated to office. What document was he/she supposed to be upholding?

Obama may have gotten a friendly judge to violate their oath in order to avoid short term pain, but the way this was handled makes it look like Berg is onto something.

Pastor Endorsement Story Spiked?

A Little Rock pastor, Robert Smith, endorsed John McCain from the pulpit and sent a letter to the IRS with the endorsement/sermon enclosed. This was in an effort to protest the tax laws which forbid churches from endorsing political candidates.

Arkansas reporter Andrew DeMillo filed a report on the story, and if his report had stayed up we might not be telling you. It seems a strange thing has happened, Arkansas papers which at first carried the stories on their online editions seem to have had the story pulled. Very curious. We will have to take you to a Minnesota paper to let you read the Arkansas story. Why don't state papers want you to know about what Pastor Robert Smith?

Not Happy with McCain or Obama? 3rd Party Presidential Candidates Debate Thursday Night

Interested in voting for a President who is AGAINST the bail-outs and puts the interests of the average citizen over the interests of global corporations? Well, you will have a chance to hear from at least two of them tomorrow night- one from the right and one from the left.

Free and Equal is pleased to announce that CSPAN will be covering (Thursday) night's debate LIVE from 9:00pm to 10:30 EST (8:00-9:30 Central). Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Independent candidate Ralph Nader have confirmed their participation.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee, has declined to attend due to scheduling conflicts. The invitation to debate remains open.

Josh and Anna Duggar Arkansas Wedding Reception

FEB OF 09 UPDATE: I have finally got the wedding reception pictures back up. VIEW THEM HERE.

**********UPDATE*******UPDATE*****UPDATE*******
Jan 19th 2009

I am about to let the renewal lapse for the site that is hosting these images. After the 28th I expect the links that I have in this article to be lost. I will look for another place to host them and post a new article with the new links when I can.
***********************************************




OK, I have posted well over 1,000 articles and audio/video files on serious issues concerning both state and national government, science, and religion, both here and at the Christian Constitutional Society site. I poured my heart, soul and mind into them in an effort to find and expound on important matters of both temporal and eternal truth. But that is not what America wants. What America wants, judging by the web traffic, is Duggarmania.

Not one of the 1,300 articles I have posted on this blog over the years have gotten the traffic of the little three paragraph nod to my young friend Josh Duggar. I simply congratulated him on his engagement.

I am no society reporter, but I will do my best since that is what you seem to want. First I will post pictures of their Arkansas reception, and then on the jump I will comment about it.....

Jim Bob Duggar taking pictures of guests as they enter the event.

Jim Bob Duggar and son (can you guess which?) greet guests as they arrive.

The stage is set as the classical musicians strum away. I believe that is Jessa Duggar at left.

The scene at one of the punch bowls. Nothing too strong I am sure. At left is "the Grandaddy of them all"- J.L. Duggar.

Some people just like to see the cake at these things.

A young man looks toward two of the Duggar daughters (in purple). Children and wholesome young ladies abounded.

Josh Duggar gives a thumbs up to the idea of being married to Anna as she looks on with approval.

Anna favors the camera with a smile.

Michelle Duggar welcomes a friend.

Jessa Duggar flashes a winning smile.

Crowd shot, with two Duggar Daughters.

They had a computer monitor (Apple of course) with a slide show running pictures from their wedding. Here are six shots of the monitor with different wedding photos as a guest watches. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six.

Josh Duggar addresses the crowd with Anna at his side.

Jim Bob and Michelle talk it over.

Anna and Josh cut the cake, with the knife shinning with a brilliant light. Jim Bob and Michelle watch with pride (no, not THE BAD KIND) back right.

I will give my report and observations on the event at a later date, for now I am off to hear some live music and eat Mexican food.

Paulson and Shocking Acts of Thuggary

TWO OF THEM: Moe could not make it for this picture.
*************************************
Today I read a paragraph from a news story that shocked me: "The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. Monday. To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left."... rest of long story here.

Can you believe it? The Secretary of the Treasury instructed the heads of the nine largest banks that they must sign a one page document agreeing to his terms before they could leave the room? And this was tactics Paulson had to use on the people he was supposedly bailing out with our money. Imagine how against it we are going to be when they send their agents around to collect from us all of this money we are supposed to be giving away.

The plan was that the banks would issue an enormous number of shares of preferred stock that the government would buy. The non-voting shares would pay 5% of the initial purchase price in annual dividends- if the banks getting the money had any profit to pay towards stock dividends. This would increase to a 9% annual payout after five years in order to encourage the banks to buy back the stock at that time.

The healthy banks at the table initially did not like the idea. The mis-managed banks loved it. The poorly run banks get the advantage here because they can take the money from the shares and pay little or nothing for it. The reason is that they are not likely to make enough profits in the next few years to even pay the full dividends. The healthy banks on the other hand, will wind up paying the full five percent for this capital, which is above market rate. They could raise the capital for less using traditional methods. Regardless, the Godfather of the Treasury made them "an offer they couldn't refuse".

This plan is an absolute disaster in the making. It once again takes us in the exact opposite direction that the free market is signaling we should go. The market says that banks who made stupid loan decisions should be punished, and perhaps removed from business. The portfolios of the failed players should be acquired by healthy banks who have shown the capacity to manage risk better. The Paulson plan does the reverse: it punishes the well-run banks by keeping incompetent players in the game and actually rewarding them for their mismanagement by giving them access to capital at an effectively lower rate than the healthy banks will pay for the government capital.

Banks won't loan to one another because they don't trust each other. This plan to keep mis-managed banks in the game will not restore that trust, and the market is sending a signal that it has no confidence in Paulson's scheme.

The other thing the market is trying to tell us is that the mis-managed banks made too many marginal loans. Credit was too easy to get, even for projects that were not sound investments or for home buyers who were not good credit risks. The market is telling us that credit needs to tighten some. The government wants to override the market and keep expanding credit. By forcing even the healthy banks to take billions of dollars at five percent, they are trying to force these banks to extend even more loans at a time when a prudent lender might want to cut back on all but the safest loans.

I am really fearful when I see the crudity of their tactics and the thuggery of their implementation. It is very apparent that the people nominally in charge of our country have absolutely no clue how to lead us out of this mess. They may not even be trying. They may simply be acting like rational parasites on the national production of our citizens. That is to say, when the host was healthy, they were careful not to suck out so much life-blood that the host would be harmed, for they depended on the host. But now that it is clear that the host is going down, they are simply trying to suck out as much life as they can before the host's demise.

Asa's New Day Job

....is with Blackwater, the private mercenary firm which Colbert once described as a "cartoonishly evil name".

Latest Deceptions on Bailout and CRA

Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (center) and Friends. Frank is a big defender of the polices that helped bring about the financial crisis.
***************************************************
I have noticed the PC-crowd, led by belligerent Congressman Barney Frank, are making some new misleading claims to deflect the just blame for the banking crisis away from the awful "Community Re-investment Act".

Frank, whose homosexual lover sat on the board of Fannie Mae even as Frank falsely insisted that the now-failed organization was sound, claimed that the Community Re-investment Act was not a factor in the crisis and that any intimations that it was were simply attempts to "scape-goat the poor".

No Congressman, the blame goes to YOU and your socialist PC cronies (in both dominant parties) who foisted this disaster on us. And the reason we blame you is because you are responsible. You held power during this time, you made the rules. And despite the clear evidence that those rules are flawed, you are clinging to them and trying to solve the problem not by making more sensible rules, but by promising the future earnings of our children to the bankers.

There are two main deceptive tacks these cretins who defend CRA take. One is to quote a statistic which says something like "84% of sub-prime mortgages were not even made by institutions subject to the CRA". Have you heard that one? It is an insidious distortion on two levels. One level is that the sub-prime loans may not have been ORIGINATED by institutions subject to the CRA, but they were ACQUIRED by such institutions in order for their home loan portfolios to look the way the CRA said they should look. The sub-prime loans may have been made by fly-by-night operators, but such operators knew they would not have to keep these crummy loans. They would just package them and sell them to more reputable lending institutions who needed loans from the "right" kind of neighborhood in order to comply with the CRA.

The other point is that investment banks may not have been subject to the CRA, but once they wanted to merge with other types of banks (after the unfortunate ending of Glass-Stegall) they were subject to the same kind of pressure. In other words, the mergers were being held up because the merged institution did not have the right home-loan "diversity".

Those two-factors together means that even though the vast majority of sub-prime loans were originated by financial institutions that were not covered under the CRA, the CRA was still driving those kinds of loans. They still wound up in the portfolios of either banks covered by the act or banks who wanted to merge with those who were.

The other main deception that you hear from CRA defenders is that "I have talked to a banker and he says there is no federal regulation requiring banks to make bad loans". I see this buzz-phrase repeated on many boards, so I think it is a talking-point that they are instructing their minions to disseminate. Like the first statement about loan percentages, it is technically narrowly true but in actual effect it is false- in other words, it is a Clintonazation.

The regulation does not tell banks "30% of your loans have to be bad or high-risk loans". Rather, it specifies that 30% of a financial institution's mortgage loans have to be in "underserved areas". The reasons those areas are "underserved" is that there in an under SUPPLY of credit-worthy people in those areas to make loans to. Most of these areas are populated by minorities, and in many cases filled with illegal aliens. Because of that, it is not politically correct to be rational and point out the financial mayhem that the loan-quota has caused. The act does not specify the loans have to be bad loans, but by specifying the loans must come from a bad area the effect is the same. All of the credit-worthy people in those areas got loans long ago. The only ones left to give money to were the riskier customers.

Barney Frank is a practicing, in-your-face homosexual. I don't approve of his life-style, but that is not really my business. He is also an arrogant control freak who is mis-representing harmful government policies as beneficial. As chairman of the House Banking Committee he should know what the truth is, but he instead is using his position to ridicule and hide the truth. The harm he will do to my family and children as a result of his refusal to face economic reality is far worse than the harm that will come to us through his deviant personal life-style choices.

Barney Frank is a deceiver. The CRA is a huge factor in the financial crisis- don't let wicked men like Frank use Clintonized stats to tell you otherwise.

The Great Bank Robbery

The Bailout will be a fail-out. If you can stomach 40 minutes of audio, this file will describe what they are trying to do with the bailout, why it is the wrong way to go about restoring confidence in the credit markets, and most importantly, what they should be doing instead.

Ignored By Media, Obama Eligibility Suit Moves Forward

"We got him!" Democratic attorney Phillip Berg said of Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. Berg has filed suit claiming Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President because....

1) of testimony from Obama's Kenyan relatives that he was born in Kenya. Obama's mother was too young to have lived "five years in the United States over the age of 18", which was the legal requirement to confer natural-born American citizenship status on one's children born abroad at the time. The account of the relatives is that she tried to fly to Hawaii but that the airline refused to let a pregnant woman days from delivery board an international flight. That was supposed to be standard safety procedure at the time. His mother hopped aboard the first flight to Hawaii after the child was born, according to the relatives.

All Obama has to do to dispel such rumors is produce three documents to the court. The main one is a real birth certificate. The COLB that is being flashed around as Obama's "birth certificate" has some problems, well documented here and other places. That link takes you to the right-wing website that kept pushing on the John Edwards adultery case that the corporate media tried so hard to ignore. The site has declared Obama innocent of accusations that he snorted cocaine in the back of a limo, and at first accepted his claims about his birth certificate. New evidence has caused them to retract their earlier concession that Obama has proved he is eligible to be President.

2) Berg's claim is that Obama forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had when he moved to Indonesia as a child. Documents at the time show him as an Indonesian citizen, and Indonesia does not have a law permitting dual citizenship. You must renounce your prior citizenship, whatever it was. If that is the case, Obama would have had to re-apply for U.S. citizenship when he returned from Indonesia. Berg wants to see that document as well.

A ruling is expected on this any day. Obama's team has done everything that can to delay, end-run, and deny the court. Once Obama is sworn in as President, he can claim immunity from such lawsuits and ignore the issue. But why? If he is legit, why not just show the documents like thousands of Americans have to do each day?

PS- McCain also has eligibility problems and I continue to maintain, along with legal minds who dare to look at the situation closely, that McCain is also ineligible to serve as President.

Of course the rule of law only applies in a free Republic. We have become a lawless land where two cults of personality form every four years. The partisans of each group simply waive aside any legal concerns honest citizens might have about their media-manufactured champions. And since those two personality cults control access to public office, devotion to party is stronger than devotion to country for holders of "public" office.

Court Allows Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination for Kindegarteners to Stand

On the fields of Lexington and Concord the war for our nation began. In a vivid display of how far we have fallen, World Net Dailey reports that the Lexington school district has initiated a policy of mandatory homosexual indoctrination for children as young as kindegarten.

The Supreme Court refused to consider overturning rulings of the lower courts. Those rulings basically said if parents did not like the homosexual indoctrination (which went beyond "acceptance" and into "recruitment") they could take their children out of school (for now) or work to elect a new school board that will change the courses.

That is an interesting perspective for the courts to stumble upon. They never found it when considering cases about school prayer or bible reading. "Democracy" for them appears to be a one-way street. When anchoring us to Conservative traditions that made our nation great, Democracy must yield to the "rights" of the village atheist or minority of deviants. When those types get in charge somewhere, minority rights somehow go out the window, and traditionalists only "right" is to get out of the way.

FAUX News Shows True Colors Again

Perhaps the most pro-Obama "news" story from any major outlet this year comes from, can you believe it- FOX! Just read the story here and see if you don't agree.

Here is an example from the story, "Corsi's best-selling book, released earlier in the U.S., claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim and attended a radical black church.

Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Web site FightTheSmears.com."

I've seen images of his school registration form in Indonesia- his faith is listed as Muslim. His step-father was Muslim in a country where men rule the roost. There is a lot of evidence Obama was raised a Muslim - too much for FOX to just write off as they do here. The article also attacks the idea that Obama attended a radical black church, but haven't some of FOX's own talking heads described Jeremiah Wright's church like that?

I don't need these reason to vote against Barak Obama. Policy and philosophical differences alone insure that. My point is that FOX only PRETENDS to be the voice of the contrarian conservative. The way I see it, their actual role is to hijack the right in order to control the extent dissent is considered OK by the puppet masters. For some reason, questions about whether Obama really is eligible for President (a natural born citizen) have been suppressed by the house organ that pretends to court the right.

Notes from All Over

It's hardly news, but Brummett is wrong again on his analysis of the threat of full-fledged casinos. Naturally he down-plays any suggestion that the lottery amendment would result in casinos. Why, in order for that to happen the legislature wold have to approve it and a judge would have to say what they approved is OK! Apparently, Brummett does not quite have the imagination to see something like that happening. I must be a bit more jaded than the "award winning journalist".

Finally he says that even if those events could somehow happen, all the net profits from the casinos would just go to higher education! He might be amazed at what can pass for "expenses" under a scenario like that. I would direct your attention to the United Way scandal, and all the other instances where folks who administrate "non-profit" programs do very well for themselves. Add to it the advertising for the race-tracks and food and everything else would be paid for by the "non-profit" casino money. Brummett's assurances about "state audits" displays a touching faith in the intelligence, determination, and integrity of the various political institutions in our state.

*********************************

The little-reported challenge to Obama's qualification for the Presidency is about to be ruled on by a judge. Why doesn't Obama just produce the full birth certificate and put an end to these stories that he was born in Kenya and that he never renounced his later Indonesian citizenship to become a U.S. citizen?

The judge may throw the whole thing out tomorrow, but what happens if Obama is declared ineligible? Who do those electors vote for? Biden?

*********************************

Turns out state revenues are higher than Governor Beebe predicted. Interesting roller-coaster on this one. Beebe pushed a huge severance tax increase seven months ago in a special session. Critics (including me) wailed about his keeping all of the money for government and ignoring tax-cuts at a time when Arkansas families were hurting and government revenues were projected to be up. Lo and behold, there followed an early leak that state revenues were then projected to be down! So see, state government needed all of the money from that tax increase after all. Now it turns out that they were really up after all- and that higher ed will get to dip their beaks into more of your earnings after all!

So will the revenues be up or down? They are projected to be whatever is convenient for Governor Beebe at the moment.

More Bird-Brained Evolution Ideas

Yet another example of how evolutionary blinders won't let scientists see what the evidence is telling them. Here they discuss how dinosaurs (even flying dinosaurs that look much like birds) develop their wings from different "fingers" than modern birds. To me that is evidence that modern birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, but this conclusion does not seem to be permitted in today's closed environment.

The speculate that some sort of gene-shifting occurred which changed how the embryo's developed in the ancestors of modern birds. The irrelevant "support" they give for this idea is that certain mutations can cause a leg to grow where an antenna should be on a fruit fly. How this helps the fly out-compete regular fruit flies is not addressed, and the idea that such a mutation could spontaneously produce a better flight wing in the ancestors of modern birds is likewise avoided.

Beebe: Borrowing is not a Tax Increase

Governor Beebe wants you to understand that borrowing money is not the same thing as a tax increase.

Governor Mike Beebe is pushing for voter approval of an amendment to give yet another board authority to put us even deeper in hock- the water board. He wants us to believe that borrowing money is not the same thing as raising your taxes. Maybe not, but it is the same thing as raising your children's taxes. Borrowed money must be repaid, with interest. When government goes on a spending spree with borrowed money, sooner or later they must pay it back and the only way the state has to raise money is to tax it.

Beebe sometimes comes off really sharp, but too often he makes statements that are so obviously false or misleading that either 1) he is stupid or 2) he thinks WE are stupid. I DON'T believe that the governor is stupid btw.

Examples include his claims that "Roe v. Wade" does not matter much anymore because succeeding court rulings have watered it down so much and his claim that states can't do anything about illegal immigration even as Oklahoma is doing something about illegal immigration. I would also remind you of his claim that his severance tax increase money had "nothing to do" with General Revenues. Does the Governor actually believe that money is not fungible, or does he really think that there is no connection when you take revenues from a tax that was once devoted to general revenue and divert 95% of it to one's special fund?

Hillary's Cattle Futures on a Grand Scale

Do you remember back in the day when Hillary Clinton turned $1,000 into almost $100,000 in less than a year of trading cattle futures? Somehow, she seemed to have an uncanny knack of picking the winning trade, right down to the time of the day when prices most favored her.

Some un-trusting souls speculated that Hillary did not get the bonanza honestly. It was thought that a stock trader entered the trades all in his own name, then assigned the winners to Hillary and the losers to his other clients.

That was never proven of course. But if Hillary had just been more patient, she could have done that very thing, in the light of day, and pass it off a public duty. You see something very much like that is just now in the process of happening, only in the light of day on a grand scale- with the full approval of the leadership of both major parties! The gist of the bank bailout is that well-connected banks- even foreign owned banks, make trades. The winning deals they keep for themselves. The losers are assigned to the U.S. taxpayers.

There is no need for secrecy anymore! If politicians are brazen enough, and global corporations who are complicit own the mass media, why you can pass this larceny off as a public duty! Its the Great Bank Robbery, only we are not using a gun to rob them, they are using the government to rob us!