NY Post Goes to Phase Three on Obama Citizenship Story

Mohandas Ghandi "First they ignore you, second they ridicule you, third they fight you, fourth you win".
*********************************

Most of the establishment media (including the faux-conservative media set up to pretend to represent conservatives like FOX) is still vigorously and energetically ignoring the growing controversy over Barack Obama's citizenship status. Obama could end at least half of the controversy by releasing his actual long-form birth certificate in any one of the 17 court cases around the country where plaintiffs have motioned for him to do this, but so far Obama has kept the evidence locked up tight. Why? All evidence about his trip to Pakistan in 1981 with an Indonesian passport has been locked down tight. Why?

If Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, then he is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President.

The story has been bubbling on the internet for months, and gaining momentum under the corporate media radar. It now appear that some outlets are moving from ignoring the story to steps two and three of Ghandi's proverb. They are attempting to end serious discussion of issues of law with ridicule and misinformation.

NY Post reporter Kevin J. Kelley wrote a piece entitled "Obama haters in last-ditch effort to derail his presidency ". Come now. If Obama is found to be ineligible the electors will likely make Joe Biden President- a man whose policies appear to be similar. I can state categorically that I do not hate Barack Obama. This issue is not about hate. Rather, this is about something that post-modern thinkers can't seem to understand.

The rule of law for the long-term good is an obstacle to adult children who think that all that matters is what they feel that they want now. So they may want to set up an idol in violation of the rules, scoffing at laws which say it should not be placed there. When what they want changes, they will also scoff at the rules which prevent them from tearing down the idol that they first set up in violation of the rules. Reality, and the rules and order that go with it, makes post-modern thinkers angry. It is up to classical thinkers to keep such people from destroying civilization with their foolishness.

When I was 22 years old, long ago, I took an oath. The oath was to defend the Constitution of the United States. I have only made two other such public oaths in my life. One to God and the other to my spouse. To the best of my ability, I have kept my oaths. I mean to keep them still. If you have read this space regularly you know that I have said that I would vote to impeach G.W. Bush based on the evidence I have right now. I declared his actions in violation of the Constitution on many occasions. Now I say that were I a judge or elector in this case I would insist that Barack Obama show that he is a natural born citizen of this country before he is allowed to take office.

Neither position is about hate, its about upholding the Constitution which has protected our liberties and sustained our country for so long. The rule of law has to be bigger than any man, be they named Bush or Obama, or else our liberties and freedoms rest on the whim of a man.

By the grace of God, I mean to keep my oaths till my last breath. If enough men are true and do the same then our liberties can be sustained. If not, the flower of freedom in this nation will die, and that oath I took will be of no account. That is why I do what I do. Small men in one party called it hate when I stood for the rule of law against the actions of President Bush, and small men like Kevin Kelley call it hate when I stand for the rule of law in this case.

Kelley's article is full of untruths and over the top distortions. For instance, he writes concerning the demands to see Obama's birth certificate, "the Obama campaign weeks ago posted on the internet a copy of his birth certificate. It affirms that he was born in the state of Hawaii."

Wrong. What Obama actually had posted was a digital image of a "Certificate of Live Birth". This document can be given to non-citizens born outside the state of Hawaii as long as it is filed within a year of their birth. It does not list the doctor or the hospital Obama was born in. A COLB under the rules for Hawaii simply does not establish that a person was born in Hawaii. It seems that Obama's mother filed the certificate, which is normally filed by hospital personnel. All of this does not even take into account the evidence that the COLB Obama is showing to carefully selected friends in the media is a forgery. What could resolve this is a court of law getting a good look at the original long-form birth certificate on file in Hawaii. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask of someone before making them President of your country. Why won't Obama do it?

Kelley further writes, "His hardest-core detractors have questioned the authenticity of the document, however, and are continuing to contend, with no credible evidence, that he may have been born in Kenya."

There are statements from several Kenyan relatives, including his grandmother, that he was born in Kenya. His grandmother says that she was present at his birth and that his mother tried to fly back to the states just before he was born, but the airlines in those days would not let a woman so close to giving birth board an international flight. After he was born, she hopped on the first plane for Hawaii, according to Obama's grandmother. Since the controversy broke, the Kenyan government has cut off access to Obama's relatives. They have also announced that they have "sealed all records" in their registry of births related to Barack H. Obama. An astute observer might note that there should be no such records if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

In addition to all this, there is ample evidence that Obama became an Indonesian citizen when he lived there as a small child, and kept his citizenship into adulthood. There is no record of his ever reclaiming his U.S. citizenship. This is a separate question however, from the one raised in the article.

Kelley spends the rest of the article speaking of the electoral college, including where he claims it is an "artifact of slavery". He is again flat wrong. The 3/5ths of a slave for determining a state's share of congressmen (and therefore electors) was an artifact of slavery, but the electoral system is a result (not an artifact) of the historical fact that the federal government of the United States was a creation of the individual sovereign states. That is why our President is elected in a series of state elections rather than one national election. The use of electors is a result of our status as a representative republic rather than a direct democracy.

If this controversy were not gaining ground, they would just keep ignoring it. Their efforts to do that are eroding. Expect to see them fight us hard on it, unless Obama simply presents the evidence that he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Cambrian Explosion Re-Ignited By Protist

The culprit
**************
The Cambrian Explosion has once again blown up in the face of proponents of the evolutionary hypothesis. This time the culprit is a one-celled organism from the phylum "protozoa" which can still be found alive at the bottom of the ocean floor.

The Cambrian Explosion refers to the sudden appearance (in geological terms)of basically every phyla of animal life alive today (and a lot more that are not alive today) in fossilized rock which they estimate to be about 543 million years old. The problem the Cambrian Explosion poses for evolution (macro-evolution that is, not variation within type) is that when everything shows up at the same time, its not evolution! You have layers and layers of rock without fossils of bilaterally symmetrical animals and then all of a sudden you come to the Cambrian layer and it is chock full of fossils of diverse and developed types. Where did all these critters come from?

"Science" texts tend to deal with this issue by basically ignoring it, either not using the phrase "Cambrian Explosion" or giving it passing mention. They also try grasping onto any thread of fossil evidence that there might have been a few bilaterally symmetrical animal life forms crawling around in the Precambrian. These would be the creatures that all the other stuff evolved from.

For many years (until they were able to re-classify Kimberella into something more convenient) they relied on "trace fossils" of "worm tracks" to show that there were other such animals around. Now a scientist has discovered a very large Protists making tracks that look exactly like the "worm tracks" in the Precambrian mud. A Protists is a is a single-celled organism rather than an animal, the cell in this case is swollen up to the size of a grape, and the creature moves by extending pseudopod like an amoeba. The tracks though, look just like the fossil "worm tracks" that they have been attributing to the alleged Precambrian worms. Those tracks were the key fossil evidence they had for an ancestor to all non-mollusk bilateral animals. Which is to say the vast majority of them.

With this discovery, the Precambrian Explosion once again becomes significant fossil evidence against the macro-evolutionary hypothesis.

Insanity By Choice: The Madness of the Post-Modern Mind

Or see it "big" here.

Evidence Grows to Support Claim Obama Ineligible

Despite its fierce ignoring by the corporate media evidence continues to accumulate that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible for President of the United States.

Obama could end many of the 17 lawsuits challenging his status simply by showing his original birth certificate which is supposed to be on file in Hawaii, and which he claimed to have possession of in his book. Why won't he? Why does he continue to offer a COLB which does not say where he was born and Hawaiian law says can be filed on behalf of non-citizen persons born outside of the state?

Assuming he eventually does what probably every one of us have to do at some point- show an original birth certificate, there is one other very credible question related to his citizenship. During his childhood, Obama was recognized as a citizen of Indonesia. As a young man he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at a time when U.S. citizens were banned from traveling to the country. Indonesia did not have dual-citizenship during this period. When did he renounce his Indonesian citizenship and apply to re-instate whatever U.S. citizenship he may have had?

Maybe if we ignore facts long enough they will go away, but facts are stubborn things. Experience has taught me that ignoring them does not cause them to go away, but to resurface in a more troublesome form. If this constitutional requirement is ignored for the sake of "the one", then what part of our constitution still applies?

The Best Investment Citigroup Ever Made

......was making over 25 million dollars in corporate contributions to both Democrat and Republican parties in the last two decades. This made them the 15th largest corporate contributor.

Politicians in both parties took the calls when Citigroup wanted to dip deep into your pockets and mine for a 300 billion dollar bailout. Now THAT's a great return on investment, and it does not even count the fact that Congress let credit card companies like Citigroup re-write the bankruptcy laws in their own interest. Remember that when you roll your lazy hindquarters out of bed tomorrow that you are going to work in order to pay taxes to bail out corporations like Citigroup.

Both parties seem wholly corrupt and completely untrustworthy. We desperately need new ones.

Corporations are not real persons, and it should be illegal for them to make contributions as if they were. Our government was supposed to be by, of, and for the people. Real flesh and blood people, not legal fictions of "persons" called corporations.

Warning to Legislators On Lottery Bill

There are unintended consequences with every law, and there will be with the lottery bill as well. I am going to dispense with the moral arguments in this column, not because I think they are unworthy of discussion but simply because I am trying to reach an audience who has already factored in (and discounted) the social consequences of state supported gambling.

This article is for the legislators who are leaning toward passing the lottery bill. It is a warning that will keep them from being bitten by one of the major unintended budgetary consequences of the amendment. Based on the way the amendment is structured, the legislature better do one thing before they pass the lottery bill: slash higher education funding by at least $75 million dollars a year. Any less than that would be recklessly stupid. Twice that amount would be more prudent and would allow the legislature some flexibility.

I realize that this advice does not make sense at first glance, but you must think through to the unintended consequences. The way the amendment is structured, once a lottery bill is passed, higher education funding from other state sources can never be reduced. The legislature's hands are tied. If we have a Great Depression and there is no funding for the state's portion of Medicaid, too bad. If online courses and other innovations reduce the cost of a college education to half of current levels, too bad! If we discover that due to economic realignment that we don't need all of the colleges at the capacity that we now have, too bad! The way the amendment is written all lottery proceeds must be added to higher education funding that cannot be reduced in any way once the lottery is in place.

The only rational thing to do therefore is to reduce such funding before the lottery is in place, then fill in the gaps once we figure out how much a lottery is really good for. There will be a transition period of a year or two in which a special session may be required to make adjustments.

Do you remember last Summer when the State Game and Fish Commission got a windfall from natural gas leases? The legislature was trying to figure out a way to get some of those funds from Game and Fish, which was already well-funded with a slice of the sales tax per the constitution, to other areas with greater need. The problem was, they couldn't. The way the amendment was written gave the legislature zero flexibility to deal with the circumstance of an unexpected windfall for Game and Fish. Legislators, you are about to do it to yourselves again if you pass this lottery bill before slashing Higher Ed spending. The amendment gives you zero flexibility for the money you have allotted to Higher Ed once that lottery is passed. You'd better get your wiggle room on the front end.

There is a huge amount of evidence to support the idea that Higher Education is already one of the most over-funded areas of state government. That link takes you to facts, not platitudes and bromides based on false assumptions about "investment" in higher education. If legislators take leave of their senses, they will vote in this lottery bill without first slashing higher education. If they do that, Higher Ed will be rolling in so much dough that every community college President can have a seven million dollar mansion, just like the U of A President. This extravagance will come at a time when Arkansas families are hurting in a way not seen since the Great Depression.

Actions have consequences. I humbly urge the members of the Arkansas Legislature to consider all of the consequences, intended and unintended, before they support this bill.

Kenyan Ambassador Confirms Obama Born There

Go to about 12:15 into this radio interview. The interviewer asks the ambassador nonchalantly if they are going to build a marker on the spot in Kenya in where President Elect Obama was born. He answers that they might, but that the spot is well known in Kenya and is already a tourist attraction!

Hello, are there any members of the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches of this government who are even trying to keep their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Is your Congressman willing?

Senator Obama, just release the certificate!

Assemblies of God Super, Serious and Credible

Dr. George Wood is the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God. In a calm and credible way he reminds us of our duties as Christians towards those in authority over us. I had to wince at some of it because my toes got stepped on some, but his message is straight from the Bible.

At a time when "Christian Leaders" are tending more and more towards being leftist heretics or party-partisan attack dogs, I found comfort that there are some out there who are well-grounded.

A/V file http://ag.org/top/

L.A. Times Continues to Pump Huckabee

There is something strange going on here. I recall that the L.A. Times was issuing very pro-Huckabee "news" stories even before he announced his bid for President and burst on the national scene. I consider it outside the norm for a Los Angeles newspaper to care about the doings of the governor of Arkansas.

Now that Huckabee is no longer a candidate, they continue to give him coverage like, well- like he's a candidate. See this mostly friendly story.

The story is friendly from a "moderate republican" perspective. It is designed to "take the edge off" of secular people's fear of electing a preacher like Huckabee. It does this by assuring people that he is a liberal on many issues and they are right about that.

I can't tell whether Mike Huckabee really believes that quasi-socialism is what the scripture calls for in government. But it does not matter whether Huckabee believes he really is acting according to the doctrines of the Christian faith when he calls for big government. The scripture says what it says, and if he believes the nanny-state stuff is biblical he is just wrong. If he doesn't then he is a hypocrite for posing as the Christian candidate while advocating policies that are statist rather than scriptural.

Christians and Government

There is too much to say to put in writing so here it is in audio/video.

Why the State Should Not Legitimize Homosexual "Marriage"

A traditional family from the stone age (4,600 YBP). DNA testing has confirmed that the two children were related to the male and female adult buried in an embracing posture with lips touching.
*******************************

I am not the first to say it, but the nuclear family is the only human institution that can create new life, and keep that life in daily communion with its creators. The nuclear family is a near-universal bedrock in every culture in the world. A non-anthropologist would be hard-pressed to name even one nation where any other arrangement for conceiving, nurturing, and raising children into adults was considered the optimal social arrangement.

Now a decent anthropologist could name some tiny cultures where other arrangements are the norm, such as the "mother's-brothers" type where there is no father figure and the brothers of the mothers are the role models for young men. They might cite an example or two of truly communal living. So other arrangements besides the nuclear family have been tried, and the results are in. The thing is, these examples are so rare, and the cultures they produce so backward, that the exceptions serve to prove a rule: the traditional nuclear family is the superior social structure for building a healthy society.

The nuclear family forms spontaneously in all successful cultures regardless of the race or religion of the society. Other family forms which usher in the next generation (and thus continue the society) are so uncompetitive with the nuclear family as to be nearly extinct. Note that a nuclear family can take two forms: monogamous or polygamous. Of the two, cultures espousing the former have had greater success in producing advanced, healthy societies than the latter, and even in those cultures where polygamy is practiced by the upper class, monogamy is more common even if only as a result of biological necessity (male and female babies are born in about equal numbers).

Marriage is what binds men and women together to produce a nuclear family. Given the essential historical role of the nuclear family in producing a healthy and well-adjusted next generation, it is crystal clear that the state needs marriage more than marriage needs the state.

(we are just warming up here, click on the jump for the rest)

"Tolerance" and the Gay Mafia

A family of the type that has sustained and nourished civilization for all of human history.
******************************

“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”
by Dorothy Sayers

Dorothy Sayers passed on over 50 years ago. It is always startling to me how the truly great minds can see things coming decades ahead of time. She, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Francis Schaeffer predicted things that are happening today. What makes it more astounding is that much of our population is oblivious to these things. In other words, these people saw from 50 years away things that many today can't see even though the truth of it is all around them.

This soulless version of tolerance is what the secularists demand of Christians. However it is not something that they are willing to practice themselves once the shoe of power makes it to the other foot. The left is quite passionate about their wickedness, whether it be abortion, redefining marriage to legitimize perversion, or driving every expression of religion out of public view. To get an idea of their views of "tolerance" I invite you to watch this startling three minute video of an elderly woman being assaulted for attempting to express an alternative view at a rally for homosexual marriage. The reporter trying to interview her clearly becomes concerned for their safety as the cameras fail to stop the threats of physical violence. Here is an eleven minute video that reminds one of Lott's predicament in Sodom as militant homosexuals are barely restrained from storming a Mormon temple even though there are a dozen armed policemen on hand.

It extends to the apparent chemical attack recently against abortion protesters at an abortion clinic in Wichita Kansas. Someone may be trying to back up their recent death threats against the abortion protesters, but authorities seemed unconcerned.

Tomorrow, or as soon as I can, I'd plan to write an article explaining exactly why the state should not recognize homosexual marriage or facilitate homosexuals adopting or foster parenting children. Through most of human history, no such explanation would have been needed, but we live in morally confused times. This are times in which the homosexual activists can shout "shame on you" at someone who voted against legitimizing homosexual marriage and mean it. In their minds, they should not be ashamed for re-defining marriage, those who are reluctant to yield to their will should be ashamed!

How Obama Could Fix the Economy (or at least appear to)

Seed Corn. A mid-Winter banquet of seed-corn makes for a great meal, but insures future famine.
*************************************

Obama can make a couple of moves that would appear to fix our troubles for a while. My fear is that he will try one or more of them and be hailed as some kind of miracle worker when what he is really doing is the equivalent of eating the seed corn.

1) He can make doctors, nurses, ER techs, and other highly paid medical professionals virtual slaves by imposing a single-payer health care system in which the government tells these people how much they will be paid to do their jobs, then sets wages at a fraction of their true market-value.

At first everyone will hail him as the one who made socialized medicine work. And for a while, it will. Then Doctors and other specialized medical personnel will retire or leave the profession, and a new generation of people will be highly reluctant to go through the agonizing and expensive work required to be competent in these fields for absurdly low wages. The supply of medical personnel will dry up and then we will have what every socialized medical system ever produced has had- rationing due to shortages in supply. This time, instead of your family and your insurer being the rationer, your unfriendly neighborhood government bureaucrat will be "the decider" on whether or not you get life-saving medical care.

2) He can tax "the wealthy" to confiscatory levels.

Of course the idea that the government should use its power (threat of force) to take things from one group of people and give it to another just because they have less is anti-biblical, but this looting-by law will work for a while.

Obama has been pumped up, made a sudden star, and protected by a global media that is owned by six gigantic global corporations. There is zero possibility, ZERO I say, that his policies will result in the looting of the super-rich who own these companies. Instead, the government pillagers will fall on the upper-middle class and the "barely-rich" who have a large pile of hard-earned assets to loot but not enough clout and organization to defend themselves from the theft.

The super rich will continue to have an official residence in the Cayman Islands, or have Congress grant them special loopholes, or hire an army of accountants and lawyers to dodge paying, just as they have done ever since the tax code got complicated enough to grant special favors. Even worse, government programs obstensibly meant to "help the poor" will in fact be cash-cows for some of these same global corporations and fat cats who will add to their fortunes servicing the government programs designed to "help the poor".

But on the rest, this will work for a while, until it becomes clear how to best protect ones self from government looting. Soon the barely rich and upper middle class will attempt to defend themselves the best they can. This will mean investing in things based NOT on what their potential market return is, but rather shift monies to investments that best avoid taxes. In other words, instead of expanding their business, they will use the money to buy tax-free government bonds or some other less-productive use of the money. Some of them will, like the doctors, say "sc$* these parasites" and retire early or work only four days a week instead of six - knowing that most of their extra effort would just go for taxes anyway.

Over time, as resources get shifted to less productive assets simply to avoid taxes and the most productive citizens reduce their work hours, the total amount of wealth to share becomes reduced. This has been the result of every government attempt to soak the rich in human history, and it will be the result this time as well. The once proud and independent population of this country will then be reduced to something akin to a pack of starving hyenas fighting each other over who gets the few remaining scraps of meat tossed to them by their rulers.

3) He can try a fancy semi-default on public and private debt.

He won't, but if I was interventionist I'd balance the budget (neglecting interest payments), then pass a law that said all bank deposits, salaries, and wages must be multiplied by ten. All debts to remain at current levels.

Would prices increase? Sure. They might not go up ten times though, because so many people would use their sudden increase in relative income to pay down debt rather than spend it all purchasing new goods. The amount of debt out there means there is some slack on inflation.

So prices would go up some, but if you handled it right domestic goods may not go up quite as much as wages. The main thing is that suddenly everyone in debt has only 1/10th the debt they had relative to their income. The banks lose value on their loans, but they have increased value on their deposits.

Who gets cheated? Holders of debt, especially government debt. Foreigners would not loan us anymore money so we could not deficit spend any more. I don't have a problem with that. Prices of imports would go up WAY more than home-made stuff. And I don't have a problem with that either.

Actually, I am starting to like this idea. He will never do it because it requires balancing the budget and standing up to the global interests who own him, the media which made him, and both major political parties in this country.

A note about "handling it right" is another reason he won't do it: I hasten to add the risk of ruinous hyper-inflation could only be stymied by curtailing the Fed and switching to real money backed by commodities like gold, silver, copper, etc....

Obama's Pick Shows Muslim Smears Wrong

Rham Emmanuel is Obama's pick for Chief of Staff.
**************

In the days leading up to the election, accusations abounded that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Readers might notice that I had no role in spreading such rumours. There was never any real evidence for them and I wrote it off as election season scare-mongering of an even lower type than normal.

With the pick of former Illinois Congressman Rham Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff, Obama should put those accusations behind him. Emmanual is Jewish, has dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel, and fought with the IDF during the first gulf war!

I don't know what Obama's religion is, maybe he does not have a strong commitment to any religion. Faith is important, but also hard to know. I will judge him on his policies that I can see rather than his faith which I can't.

Now the allegations that he was born in Kenya, or gave up his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian as a small child are credible. I wish he would end the controversy by simply producing the birth certificate and other reasonable documents. For some reason, he won't.

Barack Obama may not be a natural born citizen of the United States, but he's no Muslim.

Beebe Using Human Shields, Poison Pills

Some of Governor Mike Beebe's Human Shields
****************************

When you have a compliant state print media a politician sure can get away with things. Take Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe for example. Beebe is proposing a 1% cut in the state's grocery tax. That part is good. It is what he pledged to work for when he was elected. He suggests that we pay for it by using surplus money to make up any budget shortfalls. That part is OK also. Some might complain that we should not pay for ongoing expenses with a one-time budget surplus, but Beebe is simply using the surplus as a cushion to adjust. His budget projections have been conservative, and there is a decent chance that none of the surplus money will need to be used to plug funding gaps. At least he is looking at a way to get it back to the over-taxed citizens of the state.

So what's my problem with the plan? It's the items he plans to cut out of the budget to pay for that tax cut. He plans to cut medicaid and prisons, and fund them from the one-time surplus if his revenue forecasts are correct. That means they would be unfunded in two years.

Why is he picking those programs to leave unfunded? Because he knows if it comes down to it he can get a tax increase further down the road to pay for those popular programs. He is using poor children in need of medical care as a "human shield" to protect less popular government programs. If he had left his "quick closing action fund" unfunded (money that he uses at his personal discretion) then he might have a hard time getting a tax increase to re-fund it. No legislator wants to cut off medical care for poor children, and none wants to seem "soft on crime".

Beebe's tax cut proposal has a "poison pill" in it. If revenues stay as projected, medicaid and prisons will face budget cuts unless new tax revenues can be found. He knows he can get money for those things. If he put his quick closing fund on the table for cuts, if he put a bloated higher ed system (which may be about to get a huge infusion of cash from a state lottery) on the table, if he put government fat on the table, people would take the deal and he would never get his tax cut back. Right now, he is setting it up so that he can take back the tax cut and make it seem like it was our idea.

Athiests Want You to Be "Good for Goodness Sake"

The creation of Adam: Is man divinely created in the image of God, or the product of chance and mindless evolutionary impulses?
**************************************

Atheistic-humanists are irritating people at their best, because they try to tell me what I know. That's without them trying to be a pain in the glutes. All to often, they are trying. Like the new ads a "humanist" association is putting on buses. The basic premise of humanism is that man is the measure of all things and there is no higher power. There is a picture of a women in a Santa suit with the words "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake."

Don Wildmon of the AFA was on the right track when he pointed out in the article that without God as a reference point, there is no objective way to define what "goodness" is. Adolf Hitler believed that what he was doing was the 100% right thing to do. Here is a whimsical but philosophically accurate "interview from Hell" where Hitler makes the point that if naturalistic evolution is true, then wiping out your neighbors is an act of righteousness and letting "inferior peoples" occupy valuable living space is a moral weakness.

Without God as a reference point for morality, Hitler is not "wrong" to think that, because given his base assumptions, he was acting consistently with his beliefs about good and evil. The humanists expect us to be "good for goodness sake", but there is no way to agree on what that might be without God as a reference point for morality. It is even more grating that the humanists smugly and inaccurately present themselves as the "rational" ones while advocating a self-refuting slogan (in an atheist context) in their ads.

They proclaim humanism to be "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity". The jokes on them. Without God there is no measure to say what an "ethical life" is and there is no responsibility to treat our neighbor as we ourselves would like to be treated. When the chips are down, those loudest at proclaiming their humanist ethics will do what is in their own self interest regardless of its effects on the next person, and act in accordance with their own prejudices.

Global Cooling is On the Way

Data from the field is increasingly making the global warming scare team look silly. There has been no increase in the Earth's surface temperature since 1998, as measured by the four most well recognized systems. Here is the graph. Has the media managed to tell you that in the last decade?

There is increasing evidence that almost all of the temperature increase we have seen in that last century is due to solar activity, and not the result of human activity. The latest data shows that the sun is now cycling back into a quiet spell, and that beginning in 2012 and continuing for decades afterward the Earth should grow colder, not warmer. The last 70 years have coincided with a solar maximum which has now ended.

If you have not heard this then you have not been told the truth, either from your government schools or the global corporate media which is supposed to be watching them for you. Why? What possible motive could the government-media complex have to make you believe man-made global warming is a threat and refuse to report a decades worth of data to the contrary?

The tilt in government education and the global corporate media is toward views that tend to justify even more power to the elites in government. In science for example, it can be difficult to find texts or news reports which give the evidence for both sides a fair hearing on the issues of evolution and global warming.

Why should this be so? Consider evolution: The view that man is simply the result of chance evolutionary events gives government moral permission to attempt to mold and shape its' citizens to some desired outcome of those in authority. Other views of man, such as the classical position that he is a created being in the image of God with certain Creator-granted rights, set limits on the amount of meddling the state can do to the human psyche. Those in power might find this view inconvenient to their goals, thus it is not surprising that the bias of public school textbooks is to discuss the evidence favoring macro-evolution, but not that opposing it.

In the same way that evolution can give those in power a justification to concoct grand designs to shape their neighbor's form and mind, global warming can give them a justification for grand designs for their neighbor's property, industry, and habits. So it is once again not surprising that a balanced view of the evidence must come from outside the central authorities.

(Single) Women Drivers

World Net Daily makes a convincing case that what put Obama over the top was the single woman vote.

Unmarried women supported Obama by 70 to 29 percent. Married women supported him by a narrow 50-47% margin. That is a titanic 42 point swing. There is a vast political divide in this country between happily married women and single women. They see the world very differently.

Many of the single women are in effect "married to the state". They are much more likely to rely on the state for health care, housing subsidies, child care subsidies, and all manner of government largess. When they vote for a handsome fellow who promises more government, they are voting for "the one"- the one they count on to provide for and take care of them. They usually don't have a flesh and blood man that they love in their life, certainly not the father of any children they may have. They are afraid of being "knocked up" by another of their partners they can't count on and don't respect. By contrast, married women are for the most part not afraid of having a baby. This explains the radically different positions the two groups have on abortion.

Married women, especially homemakers, take the opposite view of single women on a range of issues. They have a husband who is the primary wage earner struggling to take care of them every day. They see government claiming an ever growing slice of their earnings and assuming more and more control over their life.. They see their husbands being taxed to pay for the benefits that single women get from government. A mother who stays at home to raise her own children in her own home is more likely to take a dim view of her family's earnings being taxed to subsidize daycare. The vast growth of government debt is a concern to them. Their husbands the only ones around to pay the "national credit card" bills that politicians run up with their expansive promises.

I am just reporting what I see here, not blaming single women for their predicament. The title "women drivers" refers only to the narrow aspect of putting Obama over the top, not our root predicament. In fact, I lay more of the blame at the feet of the men of this country. For women to be happily married, there must be a supply of worthy men to be married to. For too long we have had a surfeit of play boys when what we needed are real men. Men who more interested in providing for their families and minding their government as they are with obsessing on sports and porn. In other words, responsible grownups rather than boys of a large size.

If men had stayed strong, the women's lib movement would never have taken off. Now the problem is compounded by crazy "no fault" divorce laws so that the average man is afraid to marry. The wife could go wild on him and he would still be stuck with alimony and child support. The intent of these laws was to make "dead beat dads" more accountable to their responsibilities. When those men are rare, no such laws are needed. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of these changes has been to further scare men away from marriage. Combine this with a supply of women willing to co-habit rather than insist on the commitment of marriage, and twenty years later you get a nation that votes socialist.

Honoring Barack Obama

The real test of faith in God in not when want to do what He tells us to do in scripture. The real test of faith is when He tells us to do something that we don't wish to. If we do it on account of His word, then we have faith. If we do not according to His word, then we don't have faith that He is right.

I did not vote for Barack Obama. I believe his politics are the politics of envy, built on a violation of the 10th Commandment against coveting. His abortion position is a violation of another commandment, "Thou shall not commit murder". He seems to me to be bad medicine wrapped in a pleasant package. Until he releases his vault birth certificate, I have real doubts that he is even Constitutionally eligible to enter the office.

Despite that, the scriptures tell us some things about the attitude we are to have toward those in authority over us in civil government. First Timothy Chapter 2 says that we are to pray for them in just about every way. Romans 13 says that we are to give them the honor that they are due, and that they are God's ministers to bring wrath on evil doers.

I understand that these passages are not calling us to blind obedience to the government, but the government in power at the time these passages were penned was a pagan dictatorship. If God expected those early believers to give due respect to the corrupt Roman Emperors, surely we in America today are obligated to do the same. If blame is due, it should fall to our fellow citizens who voted them in, not the man those voters chose. Pray for revival, and the politics will follow.

Again, none of this means we have to agree on policy. We should witness to God's truth in the realm of civil government and in all other realms. Still, our default position should be the one God instructs us to affect. We should honor and pray for our civil rulers, and coming soon that includes Barack Obama.

The Magic Money Machine

The details of what is going on are very complex, but what it boils down to is that the banks have found a "magic money machine" in the form of our current public policy. Of course, magic is really the art of illusion. The banks are not magically creating more money, rather they are making money for themselves by slyly stealing it from the rest of us. This is happening through both acquiring more dollars and draining the value from existing dollars.

The financial details are very complex- that's how they keep people from realizing what is really going on and demanding that both they and the politicians who are enabling them be hung or thrown into prison for life. The simplest way I can say it is that the Federal Reserve is giving banks a higher interest rate for reserve deposits which banks put into the Fed than it charges the banks to borrow money from it overnight.

Imagine if your bank charged you only 4% interest on a loan, but offered a CD that paid 4.5% risk free. You would borrow as much money from that bank as they would loan you, and use it to buy CDs from the bank. The more CD's you bought, the more money the banks would "have" to make loans. You would then get more loans and buy even more CDs, and the cycle would start all over again with you pocketing the difference.

You might protest that no sane banker would ever operate that way- its crazy! Perhaps so, but it is just what the Fed is doing right now, and the congressman that you likely just voted for helped to greatly accelerate to process.

It looks like the global financial entities know that the United States is bankrupt and will be for a generation, so they are looking to steal as much as they can going out the door. The politicians they have purchased, including the congressman and senator you likely just voted for, have shoveled two trillion (TRILLION I SAY) dollars at them so they can suck us dry faster, before we have time to catch on or stop them.

The male bovine fecal matter reason these sell-out politicians give for the bailout is that "liquidity must be restored to the market". That is, they wanted banks to make more loans. But there are negligible amounts of loan-worthy private business out there to make loans to. Everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt right now. So the banks just loan it back to the government which just loaned it to them! How does that restore "liquidity to the market"?

See how that works? The government gives two trillion dollars to the bankrupt banks, hoping that they will use it to start making more loans to bankrupt customers. Instead, they loan it back to the government because that's the only big "safe" place left to loan to. It is called a "liquidity trap" when banks can make money both borrowing from, and lending to, the Fed.

Their whole rational for the bailout was bogus anyway. There was still credit available even at the height of the scare that "banks are going to stop extending credit". I applied for credit at the height of the scare and got a line bigger than I could hope to pay back. The people that were not getting credit were businesses that were insolvent. Why is it the taxpayer's problem when an insolvent business can't get credit? Why should an insolvent business ever get credit?

The "bailout" was a fraud, and the Fed is a scam. I urge my fellow voters to quit voting for crazy, even if the TV pundits (that you don't trust anyway) tell you that your only options are one of two scamsters in nice suits. Vote for someone that the media won't tell you about over someone they pump up.

Catholic Bishop "Right to Immigrate"

*** UPDATE****
The full response to Bishop Anthony Taylor's 32 page "pastoral letter" is too long for me to write out. I have made this 30 minute audio file instead. Not for the easily offended worshipers of a card-board cut-out lollipop and sugar plum Jesus, fine for worshipers of the real one.
*** *** *** *** *** ***

Little Rock's Catholic Bishop Taylor has issued a "Pastoral Letter" about illegal aliens (which he calls "immigrants"). His position is that they have a "right to immigrate", as well as a right to other benefits.

I could say much about this, except that I must get about to an honest job. The short version is that that Bishop Taylor's problem is that he is ignorant of the scriptures. Here is a nine minute audio file on this issue of "is it scriptural to deny illegal aliens public benefits?". Please take the time to listen to it if you care what the Bible has to say about this issue.

That talk is a general talk. As regards to the Bishop's specific letter, his points fall into two categories- those that are irrelevant to the subject at hand and those that are anti-scriptural (in direct opposition to what the Bible teachers). I hope to de-construct the missive when I return from my day job this evening, and have it for you on the jump.

Palin to "Give the Media Credibility"

The video was dropped quickly from the FOX website, but when asked about her future plans, Sarah Palin said one thing she wanted to do was to "give the media credibility", which was a positive way of saying she wanted a cable show where she would hammer on media bias and give the bias of the other side.

Pundits were outraged at the suggestion that Palin could give them any credibility. Then, as I noted, the video was gone and FOX went back to telling stories from "anonymous sources" in the McCain camp making Palin out to be a witch with a capital "B".

Two points on this. One, Sarah Palin is 100% right that the media has no credibility in much of the country. They have a well-earned reputation for telling like it ain't. They are slanted in what they say and slanted in what they leave out.

The second point is, even Palin will have a hard time getting a TV show about this, if that is what she wants. She may think that the problem is the liberal culture of the journalists. That is only a part of it. The main problem is the global-corporate perspective of the media corporation's owners and management. It is no accident who they hire.

Do you remember when Matt Drudge got his successful TV show on FOX abruptly canceled because he was told by management to pull pro-life content from his show and he refused to do it? That was FOX, the one the conservatives falsely believe tells their side.

Yes Sarah Palin is exactly right that the media has little credibility. They are domestic enemy number one in this country. But none of them are going to give her a TV show to let the American people know that. Sadly, If she wants to do this, she will have to do it on YOU TUBE.

Ballot Titles and The Courts

Many of us in Arkansas were amazed that all of the ballot questions were approved. A proposal that most of the Christian Right favored (banning cohabiting individuals from being foster parents) passed. A proposal that most of them disliked (authorization for a lottery) passed. And a couple of proposals that should have been disfavored by folks across the spectrum (allowing idiots and insane people to vote and annual legislative sessions) also passed.

How does one explain such a disparate result? Well, the foster parenting restriction was favored by most of the same crowd that pulled the lever for McCain/Palin, and the word was pretty much out on that one. The thing I want to remind Arkansas voters of was how oddly most of the proposals were worded.

The thing about giving idiots and insane people just as much say as you have in picking who wins elections was not worded so that a voter could understand that this was what the measure would do. It was couched as "expanding the right to vote to all citizens 18 and older". You had to read what was NOT ON THE BALLOT to realize that the measure would do this by striking language from the state constitution that currently bars idiots and insane people from electing our political leaders!

The thing about the annual sessions was worded obliquely as well. It said something about allowing for annual budgets. You had to really know what was going on to realize that the practical effect of the amendment was to have the legislature meet in regular session annually rather than bi-annually. As Mark Twain once said, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session".

And do you think there was anything on that water bond issue about giving an unelected group regulatory power over private property?

The ballot questions were consistently worded in a deceptive manner, except for the one on adoption. Who is responsible for this? Secretary of State Charlie Daniels and our judges. It seems like rightest ballot measures must jump through all kinds of hoops lest they be thrown off the ballot for being "deceptively worded", but the measures I mentioned were so worded that if I had not really done my homework I wold have been tempted to vote for some really bad ideas.

The trend is clear: Measures that would grow government are deceptively worded without challenge. Measures that would restrict government are gone over with a fine-toothed comb before we the people are allowed to vote on them.

Southern Avenger: "Conservatives, Be Glad McCain Lost"

This fellow says in five minutes what I have been trying to say for five months.

Voting and Knowing Your Limitations

Dirty Harry: "A man's got to know his limitations"
************************************
I played basketball at the community rec center last night. One of the players was a young black man I have known for a while. He has long dreadlocks and was skilled enough as a rapper to at least get a look for a record contract ("Thug Diesel" was to be the tentative title of his first CD).

Naturally my young friend was talking about Obama, chanting his name in fact, throughout the evening. At the end of it he remembered that I had done some political stuff and asked me who I had worked for. "Ron Paul" was my answer, but that did not impress him in the least, because he suspected that Paul ran as a Republican (and he was right about that part of course). I am not sure he knew Dr. Paul, or ever heard the term "constitutionalist."

I was thinking in my head, "If I was a McCain voter this guy would be canceling out my vote, even though the effort we have put into making this choice is very different. I study it my whole life, but the vote counts the same as the least informed".

I asked him, "So you are voting for Obama?". To my astonishment, he shook his head "no". "I am not going to vote until I get my own situation right" he answered. As soon as I was able to recover my speech, I told him that I respected what he was doing. Here was a man who at least knew enough to know that he was not ready to decide who runs the country.

The popular strain runs totally counter to his choice. There is a push to get people to vote no matter how ignorant they are of candidates and issues. There is a push to make the swing vote that decides who runs this country a group a people who can't even run their own lives! My young friend went with his instincts, not with the popular culture's attempts to manipulate him.

Dirty Harry was right. A man has to know his limitations. If you can't manage your own life, please don't cancel out the vote of people who can. They may know better than you do what is best for the country. If you haven't bothered to inform yourself on economics, government, candidates, and issues, please don't cancel out the vote of someone who has.

By the time my young friend does cast that first vote, I think it will be a sound one.

Fed Appoints Bear Stearns Risk Manager to Oversee Banks!

The Fed released the story on a Halloween Friday before the election, perhaps they did not want this decision to have a high profile.

Their website reads, "Michael Alix has been named a senior vice president in the Bank Supervision Group of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Most recently, Mr. Alix worked for the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., where he served as chief risk officer from 2006-2008 and global head of credit risk management from 1996-2006".

Hope has nothing on these guys when it comes to audacity. This is the guy who should have warned them off everything Stearns was doing. How on earth is this the person to put in charge of other banks?

To the heartland, it just looks there is a small fraternity of financial guys who look out for one another. Due to stupidity and corruption on the part of our elected officials- and the population which continues to vote for them- they now have access to the public treasury to "help a brother out".

The Fed is a cabal of private banks, we should not expect them to act in the public interest simply because they have vast access to public resources. When they make money they divide the profits among themselves. When they lose it, the bill is passed the taxpayers. It's time we talked about a post "Federal" Reserve money system.

Centralization and the Dysfunctional Personality

Centralization of political power, or even artistic power, has strong negative consequences for society. This talk focuses on one aspect of the problem- the personality types such centralization attracts and their combined effects on the system.

Click here for 26 minute Windows media A/V file.

Obama Says, "Under My Plan Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket"

All the following videos by Obama, Biden, and Harry Reed can be viewed from this link: http://eddriscoll.com/archives/014260.php. It links to four YouTube videos.

Obama Quote: "You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know -- Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." [Obama is not just talking about coal. Wouldn't Arkansas have a lot at stake now with our shal oil find? Talk about government control!]

Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry

Why Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket
In Obama's own words

(Note: In 2007 US Electric Power Industry said 49% of electricity plans were powered by coal.) 1
Obama: "What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

"I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. " http://eddriscoll.com/archives/014260.php

Biden says "NO Coal Plants Here In America!" Build them in China!

Question from young lady in Ohio caught on tape: "Senator, Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio. So why are you supporting clean coal?"

Biden: "We are not supporting clean coal, Guess what. China is building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it is polluting the U.S. It is causing people to die… The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me, 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware. …No coal plants here in America. Build them if they are going to build them, build them over there." http://eddriscoll.com/archives/014260.php [I wondered why Obama chose Biden as his Vice President. I think I now know why.]

Obama – No Problem with High Gas Prices If They Come Gradually

Interviewer? "Could higher prices help us?" [gas prices]
Obama. We have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy…… I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing, but if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustments, first of all by putting more money in their pockets but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US auto makers. http://eddriscoll.com/archives/014260.php [Is this why Obama is promising tax cuts so those affected can pay for the new oil prices. I am sure that would thrill those taxpayers voting for him for that reason.]

Harry Reid Says No To Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas.

Harry Reid on You Tube: "Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming; it's ruining our country; it's ruining our world. We have got to stop using fossil fuel." (fossil fuel includes petroleum, coal, or natural gas) http://eddriscoll.com/archives/014260.php

Is There Any Doubt Where The Democrats Will Take Us

Liberal Democrats don't really care about the people's budgets or economy, just their agenda. Their philosophy "Let the other countries develop their oil, coal, and natural gas industries," will put us in the position where we won't even be able to defend ourselves against the very aggressions of which these countries are capable because they have developed their fuel industries.

1. In 2007 US Electric Power Industry said 49% of electricity plans were powered by coal. Embedded in video at this link http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

Convincing Case Obama Ineligible for President

Here is a link to seven short video clips from Philip Berg, the Democratic lawyer who has filed suit challenging Barack H. Obama's eligibility for President. The case he makes is compelling. Obama could refute the accusations in a flash if he really is eligible, so why hasn't he? Why the delays and dodges?

To say that this issue is explosive is an understatement. The corporate media has been absolutely derelict in their duties on this issue, as they have on so many others. I am afraid that if Berg is right Americans will lash out at each other- the only people we should lash out at is Obama himself for putting us in this predicament when he must know that he is ineligible and the corporate media for creating him.

Two years ago and a half years ago, no one ever heard of him. With the help of a billion dollars in free positive media coverage, he became an overnight sensation. Compare that to what happened with Palin. She gave a live speech at a convention on national television. In other words, they did not choose to give her that coverage, she just took advantage of an event they were already obligated to cover. Since that time, the corporate media has relentlessly torn her public image down. Then after a billion dollars in attack media has had its effect, they run polls that report the public is losing confidence in her qualifications for President! Bristol Palin has gotten more critical scrutiny from the corporate media than Barack Obama!

The corporate media has absolutely not done its job when it comes to vetting Barack Obama. Because of that, a frustrated Sarah Palin has attempted to bring attention to issues that the media should have been all over. Their response was to radiate indignation over her for "going negative". See how that works? If they are for you they will attack your opponent savagely on the slightest pretext while ignoring major scandals on your side. Then, when you do the job they should have done but won't, they savagely attack you again for "going negative".

How can any candidate that is not approved by the corporate media win? They can't, until most Americans wake up and fully and irrevocably realize that the global corporate media is internal enemy #1 in this country.

Tax Increase Did Not Make it to Ballot

Does something smell fishy in Gentry?
*************************

Gentry voters were surprised to find that a vote on a tax increase did not appear on their ballots. The Mayor says that the paperwork to put it on the ballot was "lost in the mail".

A less trusting reader of The Watch believes that the oversight was deliberate- that is the Mayor knew that the tax increase would not pass in a Presidential year vote where more people were voting. The idea is to wait and have a "special election" where the tax increase is the only issue on the ballot. Those few who stand to benefit from the proceeds of the tax increase are motivated to vote. The many whose pockets are being picked are only losing a little money each, so they are less motivated to go vote against the tax increase.

Waiting and having a special election where a highly motivated special interest can skew the vote is a favorite tactic of big government types. Whether or not that happened here, we can't say. At any rate, to avoid any appearance of impropriety Gentry should wait until the 2010 regular election to re-submit the proposal.