Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Tonight On Blog Talk Radio: The Fed, Money and Jubilee

Tonight at 9PM on the Guide for the Perplexed I will visit with the state coordinator of Ron Paul's Presidential campaign in Arkansas. We will talk about the scam that is the "Federal Reserve", Money and currency, and most importantly, ways to get out of the mess the banksters have gotten us into.

It should not surprise those with faith in God that Scripture has already provided us with the guidance we need to escape the messes we get ourselves into. It is not that the answers are not there, but that people prefer their own wisdom to Gods and do not seek out the answers which He has provided. We will discuss those answers tonight.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

What Took You So Long: Ledge Doubts Beebe's Numbers

At long last I read a report that some lawmakers are beginning to question the Beebe administration's budget numbers. What finally did it for them is the revelation that the tobacco tax they just voted in would not raise all the money needed to fulfill all the promises Governor Beebe made to get them to vote for it. It will be eight or nine percent light. The reason given is that they did not calculate the effects that a big federal tax increase on cigarettes would have on purchases, even though they knew that increase was coming. In short, Beebe's budget people gave the ledge bad numbers when it just as easily could have given them good ones, but the good projections did not contain enough money to buy the needed number of votes.

With winter-molasses slowness it becomes apparent to members of the ledge what we at The Watch have been saying for a while now. You cannot trust this man. You can't trust the numbers that come from his department. Let's take a little trip down memory lane so you can see that this is not the first time something like this has happened.....

Remember when the Governor called a special session for the severance tax increase and was determined to send 95% of the revenues to roads (where as the tax before had gone to general revenues)? He took heat for increasing taxes at a time when the state was already sitting on a large surplus but Arkansas families were hurting.

As if in magic response to that complaint, there was an early and mysterious release of budget numbers that suddenly predicted a 107 million dollar "shortfall" in general revenues a week after the special session ended. "That's weird" said budget director Richard Wilson when he learned of the unexpected release of the data. And it was.

Of course it may have gotten him off the hook with why he did not give a tax cut, but it was a huge "dissing" of the legislature. They were called in not only to greatly increase the severance tax rate, but also to re-direct it from going into general revenues to going to a special highway fund with the specific roads to be built coming later. So a week after they re-direct the revenues the Governor's budget office says, "Whoops, there will be a shortfall in general revenues next year."

Why didn't the Governor tell them that before they voted to redirect the funds? He was treating them like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them fecal matter. You can go to that link for the details, including an amazing attempt by Beebe to claim that there was no connection between the general revenue fund and the highway fund just established by re-directing monies away from general revenues! No one could accept his statements at face value, but apparently people are used to being lied to in that business, because they seemed to shrug it right off.

But maybe they were not mad because the claims of a "budget shortfall" were just political cover for Beebe keeping all of the tax increase and not giving a tax cut even though the state had a surplus. You see despite the claims of a projected "shortfall" the actual revenue numbers showed that the state continued to pile up a surplus.

The whole mess got so confusing that I wrote in a column called "notes from all over":
So will the revenues be up or down? They are projected to be whatever is convenient for Governor Beebe at the moment.

PS- we should still be watchful that the Governor does not attempt to use some of the tobacco tax money to fund an increase in the number of taxpayer funded abortions in this state as we predicted. What can you expect from a man who looks at you with a straight face and tells you that "borrowing is not a tax increase"? It IS, just for your kids when they have to pay it back rather than for you now.

Obama Proposes Cuts In Farm Programs, Lincoln and Berry Have Cows

Senator Blanche Lincoln and Congressman Marion Berry are two Arkansas legislators who are not happy about the proposed changes to farm programs.


When Blanche Lincoln last ran in 2004 she outspent State Senator Jim Holt at least 40-1. Much of her financial advantage came from out of state donors, especially PACs. Despite the funding mis-match, the vote was something like 55.5 to 44.5. That was far closer than expected, but could have been closer than that. There was one group who largely agreed with Jim Holt on almost every issue but still voted overwhelmingly for Blanche Lincoln. That was the farm vote. Farmers who agreed with Holt on abortion, taxes, judges, guns, and just about everything else were "one issue voters". They felt that Lincoln would do the best job of defending farm programs. Many of these "programs" have the effect of taxing middle and working class citizens in order to make farm program payments to farmers who are far better off than they are. Well, if any of them told their conscience to shut up as they pulled the lever for the pro-abortion Lincoln, maybe they should not have. It now looks like the farm programs are in danger and there may be nothing Lincoln or Congressman Marion Berry can do about it.

President Barack Obama has expanded spending for almost every thing in government, but there is one thing he wants to cut. He wants to eliminate program grants over $250,000 from one program. That would affect thirty-five big farmers in this state. He also wants to phase out payments to farms that have over half a million dollars worth of sales. Twenty-one thousands Arkansas farms got money from the program last year, but we don't know how many of them would be above the cut-off point. It is likely that the large farms will simply break up into smaller formal units to evade the limits unless strict controls are put in place anyway.

The proposed cuts would eliminate $16 billion from the budget over several years- the Treasury can give more than that to AIG in a single day, but at least it is a cut. It may be that Obama is just yanking the chain of the one Democratic constituency that did not vote for him- a little payback if you will. The whole threat to slash these programs when he is saying "yes we can" to every other group who wants your money makes me think it is a Rahm Emanuel-designed ploy. Some of those Southern Democrats, including Lincoln, are a little slow to get behind the socialist agenda of the person who occupies the oval office (the debate on whether he is constitutionally eligible has never really been resolved). This may be a tactic to get them in line. Obama may tell her she will get the money for her millionaire farmers back if she plays ball on the more liberal part of the agenda. If so, Lincoln may make some votes that will get her in hot water with the folks back home.

I find it amusing that normally bland talking politicians can go over the top like a blogger when some group whose support they need gets their government gravy cut off. Lincoln signed a letter saying that Obama's plan "lacks an understanding" about farm issues. Berry huffed and puffed even more. He called the proposal "an assault on production agriculture that was unnecessary and uncalled for". He added that it was "a cheap stunt to pander to the ultra-liberals in our party".

So cutting off government subsidies is "an assault"? If I talk about hitting you over the head with a chair, that is assault. If I talk about cutting the allowance that I give you, its NOT assault. Only in Washington D.C. can a "cheap stunt" be something that SAVES taxpayers 16 billion dollars. Lincoln and Berry both questioned why Obama would suggest this when just last year the Congress hammered out a program for agriculture until 2012. Hey guys, he did tell you he was for "change".

And Berry and southern Democrats may not like the ultra-liberals who have taken over that party, but they empowered them. The Democratic party is a broad "gimmie coalition. The one thing they have in common is that they want someone else to pay for their benefits. The GOP is doing it now too, so it is turning into just an argument over whose friends get the loot. Now, as the money starts to run out, we can expect the members of the broad coalition to start turning on one another.

It may not be time for that yet. Obama indicated a willingness to talk about the changes. He may yet relent and just borrow another 16 billion from the Chinese to give to rich farmers. What we may never hear about is what Lincoln and Berry have to give in exchange for getting that farm money back.

RETRACTION: Tea Parties in Springdale Arkansas

Your reporter is about to eat crow.

It appears I owe an apology to the Springdale City government due to some of the claims in my report that officials in the city refused to issue a permit to have a "Tea Party" in that city. Because my report was so strongly worded, I believe that I need to put myself "on suspension" for a while, just as I did a couple of years ago when I went with a story that later turned out to be wrong.

I had two sources high up in the area Tea Party movement tell me that the people they assigned to get the permit from Springdale told them all at the meeting that "after talking to the city of Springdale, a Tea Party there is just not going to happen". A man named Eric Batey made that statement. The impression the hearers got was that the city was not cooperative with the request. Recently I learned that Mayor Sprouse of Springdale challenged the story......

"What you state is simply not true. I was first made aware of this rumor Monday morning by Mike Disney. My staff and I checked with every department and no one had received a request for a permit for a Tea Party. I had Wyman Morgan, our Director of Administration, call Mike back and let him know how he could get a permit. Our city would never refuse a permit for any peaceful demonstration whether we agree with the cause or not. It just so happens, by the way, that I support the Tea Party effort and what it stands for. I’ve been hearing about it for some time now on Fox News and the Shaun Hannity radio program.

I don’t know if anyone from the organization followed through and got the permit or not- but if there is not a rally in Springdale , it’s not because the city government denied permission. It’s amazing to me how quick we are to believe something negative just because someone put it on a website or a blog. You know as well as I do that anyone can say anything without any accountability to the truth. I am thankful that you contacted me so I could set the record straight. I only ask that when given the opportunity, you’ll be as willing to spread the truth about this matter as you were to believe a false rumor. I know you will because I see from your quote at the bottom of your email that you trust our Lord and Savior- that tells me that the truth is of the utmost importance in your life. If you have other questions or would like to discuss this further, call me anytime on my cell, xxx xxxx."

Once I learned that the facts were in dispute, I called my sources and got the name and phone number of one of the people that was in charge of getting a Springdale Tea Party set up, Eric Batey. He said he did not feel that Sprindale was singling them out, but rather that they had standard procedures in place for protests that the Tea Party did not have time to work around. His statement at the meeting was misunderstood. "We contacted the city, we were told that we needed specific documentation and insurance. We did not have time to do it", Batey summed up.

I retract the story and intend to write a letter of apology to the mayor's office today. I have published 1500+ stories since I started this blog in 2005. Sometimes I get it wrong, and I got this one wrong. I also need to figure out how long a "forced vacation" I should have from blogging.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Compassion Can Be More Cruel Than the Law/ Elliott's Bill Instate Tuition for Illegals

Open Letter to Senators:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom.
John Locke (1632–1704)

No law can possibly meet the convenience of every one: we must be satisfied if it be beneficial on the whole and to the majority.
Titus Livius (Livy) (59 B.C.–A.D. 17), Roman historian

Regarding Senator Elliott's SB799, I know you will be told that the compassionate thing to do is to pass this bill. However, we have laws precisely to protect against “compassion” that occurs naturally, and which can eventually create injustice and chaos. We are better protected by laws that at times may seem cruel than by our feelings. For example, it is very simple to feel sorry for someone who has broken the law and now is subject to what seems harsh punishment. But to ignore that broken law leads invariably to even more crime and more hardships to others, often the innocent.

Mandating that children of illegal aliens who came here as children must pay out-of-state tuition may seem cruel, but it is the price that they and their parents pay for the crime of coming to this country illegally. Some children suffer when their parents are imprisoned for committing crimes. We have compassion for those children, but we don’t let the parent out of prison. Both child and parent have to suffer for what the parent did. To let the parent out of prison would create chaos; it would precipitate an eventual breakdown of the law that would endanger other innocents.

Do laws mean anything anymore? To you? To anyone? We have a Secretary of the Treasury and head of the IRS who is an admitted tax cheat. Because of that I wonder how many people this year will refuse to file their taxes. Ignoring laws, or interpreting them any way one wants will have serious consequences, the worst of which would be, of course, anarchy. I believe that we already have an electorate that is becoming more and more cynical, and that is very dangerous for all of us.

Interestingly, when Sen. Elliott claims that 10 other states have ignored the federal law and gotten away with it (a paraphrase of her comment), it sounds suspiciously like the excuses my teenage granddaughter uses when she really wants something that she knows her parents won't approve of and which may not be good for her.

Finally, if you pass this bill, and Jim Purcell, director of the Department of Higher Education, is correct about Arkansas losing its ability to charge out of state tuition, how do you plan to replace that money? Tax us even more? Raid the treasury? It will be interesting to see how quickly an out-of-state student files suit if this bill is passed.

I implore you to uphold our laws and not pass this bill.

Iris Stevens
Jonesboro, Arkansas

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and ... when they fail to do this purpose they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968)

Elliott's Defense on Instate-Tuition for Ilegal Aliens - Fact, Fiction, or Deception?

Senator Joyce Elliott sent out a document with eleven bullet points promoting/defending her bill SB799 to allow illegal aliens to attend college in Arkansas at instate tuition price. She titled this document: SB 799: THE FACTS. I numbered those bullet points and made a rebuttal to each of them below in blue font. I have followed all aspects of her bill since attending and testifying at the hearing of her similar bill in 2005.

1. Elliott: SB799 has NO effect on Arkansas citizens to attend college. None.

Just for thought, consider this. If a law were filed to allow illegal aliens to become legislators, would legislators agree that it "has no effect on Arkansas legislators to pass laws. None?" Is that the fact they would consider, or would other factors be more important?

But SB799 does have an effect on taxpayers. Taxpayers pay for higher education (Taxpayers pay about 58% of higher education and student tuition about 35% -2001 figures) That is why every state charges a higher fee for students who attend state colleges from out of state. It is not fair for Arkansas taxpayers to foot the bill for residents of other states; and it is even more unfair for Arkansans to educate students from other countries.

And SB799 could have some effect on Arkansas citizens attending college when citizens and parents keep having to pay these taxes. If passed, it would cost Arkansans for a court case as well. A three judge panel of the California Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday that a California law intended to permit illegal aliens to attend public colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates is unconstitutional because it "conflicts with federal law, and violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the constitution."

2. Elliott: It is not illegal for undocumented students to attend college in Arkansas. It is just prohibitively expensive because they must pay 2-3 times the tuition of other students.

Who says it is not illegal for undocumented students to attend college in Arkansas. Federal law, 8-USC-Section 1621, specifically says you can't provide postsecondary education to illegal aliens.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency Pat Reilly said, "The only way foreign nationals can attend college in the United States legally is through the agency's International Student Exchange and Visitors Program. Illegal immigrants in the U.S. cannot qualify for that program, Reilly said."

I know that our inexperienced Attorney General ruled differently on illegals being able to attend college (but without instate tuition) , but how does he have the right to give a legal opinion that conflicts with federal law and ICE? See this link for my rebuttal to AG Dustin McDaniel's Opinion on this issue. http://www.wpaag.org/Illegals%20-AR%20%20AG%20Rebuttal%20on%20illegals%20&%20college.htm

Plyler vs. Doe, the Supreme Court ruling in 1982 that mandated education for K-12 did not include postsecondary education (for some very good reasons included below).

Even if it were legal for undocumented students to attend college, it would still be illegal according to federal law and according to Governor Beebe to give instate tuition to undocumented (illegal alien) students unless students from any other state could also go to college in Arkansas without paying out-of state-tuition. The federal law is very clear on that point.

8 USC Section 1623 (pasted below) prohibits giving any "postsecondary education benefit" to an "alien unlawfully present in the US" unless any other citizen of the US in any state is given that same benefit.

This is the way the AP article May 23, 08 by Andrew Demillo reported it: The bill failed [Elliot's bill in 2005] after Beebe, then the state's attorney general, released a legal opinion that said offering illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates likely would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment....Beebe's 2005 opinion also said the measure might run afoul of a 1996 federal law that said no higher education benefit shall be available to illegal immigrants' children unless it's also available to every U.S. citizen.

Governor Beebe was also quoted in a newspaper article in January 25, 09 as saying, We can’t afford to give scholarships and in-state tuition to every child of every American citizen in the other 49 states. Since you can’t do that, you can’t do that with illegal aliens either. It’s real simple.” http://arkansasnews.com/?p=22740 January 25, 09

3. Elliott: SB799 does only two things: (1) Allows undocumented students to use their own money to pay tuition at the in-state rate and (2) requires them to sign an affidavit declaring their intention to legalize their immigration status. There are NO scholarships involved.

Signing an affidavit of intention is just a deceitful smoke screen. Children of illegal aliens become illegal themselves and subject to deportation at 18 1/2 (unless they were born on US soil). Therefore, college undocumented students are unlawfully present here and cannot lawfully operate and hold jobs, so it makes no sense to use taxpayers' money to subsidize their education or to tempt them to steal a citizen's identity in order to get a job.

To become naturalized these students would have to go back to Mexico or other country and be put on a waiting list. If these students apply for citizenship before going back to Mexico or other country, legally they could and should be deported at that time. As Senator Bisbee said in 2005, if his children were in that situation, they would have more sense than to do that, and he felt sure these college-age illegal aliens would have more sense too. It would be easy for them to SAY they intend to legalize their immigration status, but they won't under the circumstances.

At legislative hearings on HB1525, in 2005, a bill to give scholarships and in-state tuition by Joyce Elliott, several presidents of colleges spoke in favor of the bill. However when asked one by one by Senator Bisbee if they would hire these students when they graduated, these university presidents ALL admitted they would not. They knew they had to answer this way; otherwise they would be confessing they would be willing to be involved in criminal activity by hiring them. They knew the law on hiring illegal aliens, but they did not know the law on allowing postsecondary education or chose to ignore it.

For 8 other points see this link: http://www.wpaag.org/Leg%2009%20-%20Elliot%20Rebutal%20on%20instate%20tuition.htm
or click Thursday below or just scroll down if sent here.

Elliott's illegal bill/ Cal. Paying Back 7 Yrs of Out-of-state tution

"Eleven other states have passed laws similar to Senate Bill 799 without being penalized, Elliott said. Texas has had such a law since 2001, she said. If there were legal consequences to this legislation, it would have surfaced by now, she said."

Elliott did not note that California is being penalized. They passed their law in 2001. They got away with it until 2008. Now according to Reuter's press release, by court order California is having to reimburse every US student who paid out of state tuition. They passed the law in 2001 and the court decision came down in 2008 so it appears that they will be paying back out-of-state tuition for a seven-year period.

Is this the chance Arkansas wants to take. And does anyone doubt that honest Elliott was aware of the California court decision when she said other states had not been penalized?

Senator Elliott touts the fact that 10 states have passed similar laws to allow undocumented students to pay instate tuition. That means 40 states have had more sense than to do so. Numerous other states have had similar laws introduced that failed.

Why would Arkansas, almost the poorest state in the nation which is number one or two in the growth of illegal aliens want to take such a risk?

Surely no one doubts that this will become a court case immediately after it is passed. California court case in 2008 has set a precedent that will be followed in other court cases.

"Utah is not the only state to pass legislation that allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities. In 2001, Texas became the first state to pass legislation granting in-state tuition to undocumented students; California followed later that year. In total, ten states grant in-state tuition to undocumented students; they include: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington (NCSL 2006). Other states have considered similar legislation, but have failed to pass it." http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=pcvrzzcab.0.qdonzzcab.umhtnxcab.129&ts=S0394&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imakenews.com%2Fcppa%2Fe_article000758313.cfm%3Fx%3Db11%2C0%2Cw

A Sense of Shame on Tuition Breaks for Illegals

"He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful" - The Talmud

I have found an explanation for "Moore's Disparity". That is the effect that getting beaten on a bill has on liberal versus conservative lawmakers. When a conservative loses on a bill, they tend to hurry away from it like they were embarrassed to have ever brought it up in the first place. When a liberal loses on a bill, they get enraged and stay enraged for two years and then bring it back again in the next session without apology. So what's behind the disparity effect? Well, its John Brummet's fault.

I don't mean to say that he is the sole reason for the effect, but he is "the tip of the spear" behind the phenomenon. You see, there is a whole media complex designed to snarl at and be ugly to politicians who take a conservative position even if, maybe especially if, the people support it. Those same media fawn over and laud the courage of the politician who takes a liberal idea and keeps giving us the opportunity to "choose again" until we make the choice that is right for big government.

Add to that the local culture in the capital complex, where government workers dominate the environment and some are willing to be openly contemptuous of legislators who resist expansions in government, and you have your explanation of why their guys seem more courageous and determined that your guys.

In his recent column, Brummett even chastises Governor Mike Beebe for coming out against Senator Joyce Elliot's bill granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens who have graduated from an Arkansas high school. She tried the same bill in a previous session, but it was stopped short of passage due to massive protests from the folks back home.

Back to my opening quote from the Talmud. I do not say that all, or even most, illegal aliens are cruel. I am just saying that they are illegal. And depending on age of arrival they, or their parents in any case, knew that they were breaking the law when they came here. We don't want them hung at noon for that, but neither do we want to subsidize that, We don't want to reward that. And make no mistake about it, in-state tuition is subsidized tuition. Subsidized by who? The taxpayers of course. We are the only ones around when it comes to finding ways for government to pay the bills. In this case, to be merciful to the law-breakers is to be unmerciful to the law-abiding.

I don't say that they should be denied education, just that they should pay for it themselves. All of it, without the taxpayer subsidies that result in in-state tuition rates.

Brummett writes, So, anyway, they had testimony before the Senate committee by a high school Honor Society graduate and child of illegal immigrants who said he needed in-state college tuition so he could become a math teacher and give back to the community.

First of all, if "Juan" was simply the CHILD of illegal immigrants but born in this country then he is already a citizen (under current interpretation of law) and already illegible for in-state tuition. What Brummett is too much of a putz to write is that Juan himself is not in this country legally. Secondly, if he wants to "give back" I'd say Juan can start giving back to the community right now by paying for his own tuition instead of expecting you and me to pick up the tab for part of it. And I don't want someone who takes breaking the law so lightly to teach children. Mexico needs math teachers too.

Three mighty cheers for David Gearhart, chancellor of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who endorsed the bill and explained to the committee that the university does what it can already to find financial equalization help for children of illegal immigrants.

What? Is this the potentate who lives in the seven million dollar taxpayer built home? This is in his further economic interests. It costs the man nothing to say that more people should get subsidized tuition. Its like a rice farmer saying farm subsidies should be higher. Cheers for that?

Brummett is in the part of society that benefits from illegal aliens but is not at risk of losing money through depressed wages or loss of job opportunity. Like the Chancellor, it is in his own economic interests (and against that of the working class citizens) to support and incourage an influx of illegal immigrants. Like the Chancellor, they congratulate each other on how "moral" they are to support what is in their own economic interests anyway. The gross hypocrisy makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh, and Brummett apologized to readers who may have already seen the story on his blog. Not to worry, nobody reads your blog John.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Got Tea? April 15th Tea Part Protests Planned Around the State

There is a site here with POCs for April 15th tea party demonstrations in various Arkansas cities.

Sad But True Department

I must concur with Kincade over at The Arkansas Project that House Minority Whip Mark Martin has written a funny but sad article at his Off the Marble blog called "How to Write a Conservative Email".

It is written "Faithful are the wounds of a friend". Martin is not against conservative activism, he just wishes they would activate more effectively. I guess it is also written that "The children of this world will be wiser in this present age than the children of the light." or somethin' like that.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Tonight on The Guide for the Perplexed

Tonight at 9:00PM central on blogtalk radio. Are human beings the result of evolution by natural descent from a common ancestor with the apes, or the product of a Creator? It is a scientific question but the answer has profound implications for for government and society. Parts of this show could get technical as we are going to discuss recent evidence from genetics.

The Superfluous Legislature

The word is that a common way to end debates in committee meetings is to say "The Governor is against it", or "The Governor is for it". Those single sentences are also used as an explanation by a legislator to explain their vote. Apparently, if the Governor has an opinion on some issue, then most legislators don't need one!

It is pitiful to see the erosion of the legislative branch of government, both on the state and the federal level. In theory, the legislative branch is supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, and the closest to the people. The Executive is merely supposed to carry out their wishes, executing the laws that they pass. The courts are supposed to interpret that law.

In reality, the courts started making what they consider law long ago, and the legislature did nothing to defend their constitutional turf. Now the ledge has taken to simply asking the executive what laws it wants passed. If the Governor is against a bill, they seem to think that is reason enough to vote against it. Even the bureaucrats who run the state agencies seem to boss around these hapless creatures called legislators. If 50 people from back home tell a legislator they are in favor of a bill and one department of education bureaucrat tells him they are against it, the average legislator has been voting the bill down!

They are not just acting as a rubber stamp, they are everyone's rubber stamp. The courts, the Governor, the bureaucrats. Everyone's stamp except for the people they are really supposed to be working for. There is no need to even have a legislature under their current operational philosophy.

My description does not apply to every legislator of course. There are many who consider issues on their merits, listen to the home folks, and don't simply let the Governor or his people tell them how to vote. But they are the exception not the rule, especially in the majority party.

The pity is that they still have the legal authority to put the will of the people into law. They do not have to be superfluous, they are just choosing to be.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

In Favor of Reparations for Poor Blacks

W.E.B. DuBois noted that marriage rates among blacks and whites in Philadelphia in the 1890s were almost identical.

It takes a strong person to admit they have been wrong. I was once against the idea of reparations for Americans of African Ancestry. Now I realize that the injustices they have suffered can only be made right by a massive transfer of wealth.

I am not, of course, speaking of reparations for slavery. Anyone who suffered wrong or benefited illicitly for that shameful institution has long since passed on to their eternal reward. I instead call for reparations for the insidious destruction of the black family brought about by the welfare state of the last five decades.

Over 70% of black children are born illegitimately today. As you can see by the chart below, single parent families cluster in the poorest 20% of households.

The state of the black family went from close to the same as whites a century ago to a shattered wreck today. What changed in those 100 years? The welfare state intervened to destroy the black family. While a government check and health care might not be an attractive alternative to a female who had a husband with a middle class income and owned property, it proved to be a destructive enticement for black females. Compared to the wages and opportunities a common laborer could bring in, the welfare check seemed a viable option. Thus, black men were competing for wives with the government, and many black women chose to be married to the government rather than married to a common laborer.

We have since discovered that a mother and a welfare check are no substitute for a mother and a father. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. The government subsidized out-of-wedlock births and the nation got more of it. It was largely restricted to the lower classes and those with less family resources to fall back on- black America. Once the welfare mentality became more accepted in the black subculture, it exploded and overwhelmed it. White Americans are not immune to the lure, our relative prosperity just meant that it took longer for a critical mass of acceptance to accumulate.

While the black family in this country was destroyed by the welfare state and the black population kept at subsistence levels, one group prospered. That would be the bureaucrats who administered the welfare state. They collected handsome salaries with excellent benefits. The acquired property. Competent or incompetent they were promoted quickly because they were in a high growth industry that was not held accountable for results. Today the largest employer in this state is the state, and many of those workers service one form of welfare program or another.

My modest proposal is that reparations be made for the horrid injury done to our fellow citizens. Specifically, all government welfare workers should be made into slaves to serve the people of color whom they have subjected to such deprivations. Likewise their possessions, gathered up on the misery of others, should be sold off and the proceeds given to the injured parties. Our government was not innocent in this matter, and so it is only fair that an amount equal to one half of the salaries of the former welfare state bureaucrats should be paid by the government into a pool that will be split up among the victims for a period of 40 years. If that seems too much, remember we are already spending twice that amount, and if we keep things as the are the salaries are likely to grow. In addition, we would not need the welfare programs anymore, saving the innocent taxpayers untold billions.

Now I realize that some welfare bureaucrats are people of color, but just as some blacks owned slaves and so should have had to share in reparations for slavery, those who profited from the destruction of the black family should pay for its restoration. Such people should be judged by their deeds, not their pigmentation.

That is my modest proposal for reparations.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Misdirection on AIG Bonus Issue

People are angry about the 165 million dollars in bonus money that heavily bailed-out insurer AIG gave out. And they ought to be. But while the media misdirects your anger to this one group of corporate looters, the big fish slip away unscathed. Let's look at who is more directly responsible.....

Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd are the "point men" to fix this mess. Its ridiculous. They were the ones running the congressional oversight committees when we got into this mess. There policies are what got us here. Now they want to shift all the anger and blame into one narrow group. If people feel like the guys running these messed up banks should resign, then Doodd and Frank should resign.

What is particularly galling is the massive hypocrisy of those two. Frank was sleeping with a male board member of Fannie Mae when he was supposed to be overseeing them. He pushed for the community re-investment act and still will not admit its major role in the housing crises. He should have zero credibility. He blew it bigger than any of these execs who lost billions. Still, he gets on their and acts like he is the big reformer who is going to go after all of these crooks. His fingerprints are all over this fiasco. The execs are like petty crooks who take the fall for the crime lord really responsible.

Dodd was on TV radiating indignation at the AIG execs who took the bonuses. Then it was revealed that HE was the one who changed the conditions of the bailout so that the bonuses could be paid. The DOA excuse was that they were afraid of lawsuits, but they write the law and could exempt the clause from judicial review.

The real scandal is where the bulk of the AIG bailout billions went. It was to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and foreign banks. The people who got this bailout were the same ones who got the last bailout, it just went to AIG so AIG could pay off its losing bets with Goldman Sachs. Our government has become a kleptocracy. That is rule by, and for, a small group of very rich thieves. The Goldman Sachs and company guys control policy no matter which party is in power, and they are using the government to engorge themselves with taxpayer monies.

Taxing the bonuses at 90% is an example of two wrongs not making a right. The bailout should never have been handed out in the first place. Of course there will be corruption when the government hands out two trillion dollars in the space of a few months. How could they not know that, are they insane? Now that it has been handed out, a retroactive changing of the law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. It does not address who got almost all of the money and it won't apply to all of the overseas AIG employees anyway.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Return of Patriarchy

And the Duggars shall inheirit the earth? Jim Bob Duggar with one of his many sons at the wedding of an older son.

I have tried to write an article like this before, but not as well as Phillip Longman at the New America Foundation does it. He gives interesting statistics and powerful historical examples to make his case. And in this instance, the historical effects will be magnified. Never before have those who wanted children had so many ways to get them. Never before have those who did not want them had so many ways to avoid having them. Now it may be offensive in some of the points it makes to those who have a dislike of patriarchy, but it really is profoundly written. So go read it already!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Tonight on "The Guide for the Perplexed"

In 45 minutes I go "on air" for a netcast radio show. The topics tonight include "The Judas Goat" and "Why the State Should Not Recognize Homosexual Marriage".

Click here to listen.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Computer Chip To Be Used in AR Driver's License if HB1978 passes (Corrected Form)

(This law failed in the House by 3 votes today but it can, and I am sure, will be voted on again. I understand Governor Beebe is pushing it. It has not come before the Senate yet. )

AR Enhanced Driver's License bill (HB1978) Says No Computer Chip will Be Used in Driver's License
A National Bill Says Computer Chips Are Required
See quotes and links below:

Quote from Arkansas HB1978 called Enhanced Driver's License bill
page 4, lines 10-14. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Bills/HB1978.pdf
10 (e) In addition to the requirements of this subchapter, a voluntary
11 enhanced security driver’s license, voluntary enhanced security commercial
12 driver’s license, or voluntary enhanced security identification card issued
13 under this subchapter shall be subject to all provisions of the Driver's
14 License Security and Modernization Act, § 27-16-1101 et seq.

This quote which was an amendment to the bill also found on page 4, Arkansas bill called Enhanced Driver' License, HB1978
lines 25-29 http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Bills/HB1978.pdf
25 (b) The Office of Driver Services of the Department of Finance and
26 Administration shall not include an electronic chip or any type of radio
27 frequency identification (RFID) tag or chip in any driver’s license or
28 identification card or enhanced security driver’s license or identification
29 cards issued by the department.

Quotes from a national bill, National Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002
HR 4633 IH 107th CONGRESS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.4633:

`(b) STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE AND IDENTIFICATION CARD PROGRAMS- Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this section, each State shall have in effect a driver's license and identification card program under which the State meets the following requirements:

`(A) IN GENERAL- A State shall embed a computer chip in each new or renewed driver's license or identification card issued by the State.

`(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPUTER CHIPS- A computer chip embedded in a driver's license or identification card under this paragraph shall--

`(i) contain, in electronic form, all text data written on the license or card;

`(ii) contain encoded biometric data matching the holder of the license or card;

`(iii) contain encryption and security software or hardware (or both) that prevents access to data stored on the chip without the express consent of the individual to whom the data applies, other than access by a Federal, State, or local agency (including a court or law enforcement agency) in carrying out its functions, or by a private entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions;

`(iv) accept data or software written to the license or card by non-governmental devices if the data transfer is authorized by the holder of the license or card; and

`(v) conform to any other standards issued by Secretary.


`(A) IN GENERAL- A State shall obtain biometric data for the identification of each individual to whom the State issues a new or renewed driver's license or identification card and shall maintain such data.

`(B) REQUIREMENT FOR BIOMETRIC DATA- Biometric data obtained by a State under this paragraph shall be of a type that can be matched to the license or card holder only with the express cooperation of the license or card holder.


`(A) IN GENERAL- A State shall participate in a program to link State motor vehicle databases in order to provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other States. [Databases would have to be compatible to do this so there would have to be a national standard]

`(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION- A State motor vehicle database shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

`(i) All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards issued by the State, other than the encoded biometric data stored on such licenses and cards under paragraph (1).

`(ii) Biometric data obtained under paragraph (2) from each individual to whom the State issues a new or renewed driver's license or identification card.

`(iii) Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Campaign for Liberty Protests Blanche Lincoln Event

Protesters yesterday in Little Rock. For more images, click here.


The Campaign for Liberty is an offshoot of Congressman Ron Paul's Presidential campaign. Yesterday they held a Tea Party Protest for the bailouts and other outrages outside a fund raiser for Senator Blanche Lincoln. I find myself extremely embarrassed to be scooped on this story by the self-described laziest and worst blogger in Arkansas, David Kincade of the Arkansas Project. This is especially inexcusable since I was a spokesman for the Ron Paul Presidential campaign in Arkansas. It makes me wonder if his claims to be laziest and worst are not merely a ploy to lower expectations.

As punishment to myself for not covering it earlier, I am going to stop typing now and just urge you to go on over to The Project and read about it.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

New Wal-Mart Stores "Marque Uno Para Englese"

More Genetic Surprises for Evolutionists

Yet another examination of genes reveals something that scientists did not expect to find if macro-evolution were true, yet fits right in with the Theory of Intelligent Design. The scientists seem unable to take off their blinders to see what the evidence is saying.

This Science Daily article describes an "astounding" (if you buy evolution) discovery of a gene that was (again if you buy evolution) "dead" for millions of years and then "reactivated" by what they attribute to "a complex series of structural events". They give credit to a retrovirus for engineering the complex series of structural events. What they have found here is the fingerprint of God in His handywork, but their world view does not permit them to recognize it as such.

Mice have many copies of the gene in question. Monkeys only have one, and it is deactivated. Apes and humans have a re-furbished and activated copy of this gene which helps us fight diseases like TB. Evolutionary doctrine states that there were millions of years between the time when monkeys lost the gene and the great apes and humans split off from them. During that time, a dead gene has no selective pressure on it to remain viable for its original task. It should accumulate random mutations each generation. The idea that one could come back "from the dead" after all that time, including striping out any accumulated mutations that would wreck its function, is not "astounding", it's silly.

They are astounded because they discount any possibility that the "complex series of structural events" was orchestrated by an Intelligent Designer. Yet "complex structural events" in which the genes of organisms are re-arranged in this way happen all the time- they are done by intelligent designer scientists doing genetic engineering.

Animal RFID Plus, HR 875 Spells Doom for 4th Amendment

Farms become play toys for Federal Control Under the Act

Here are a few excerpts from this disturbing report about the so-called "Food Modernization and Safety Act".

"The bill will create a new Food Safety Administration and give its administrator the authority to "conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products or the environment" on every family farm, ranch, vineyard and fishing hole in the country. Moreover, the administrator can visit and inspect the property and demand that the owner present "papers and effects," and all records relating to food production."

"There is nothing in this bill that requires the administrator show probable cause or that evidence be presented to a judge to secure a warrant for entry into the property. The Fourth Amendment explicitly prohibits government from entering private property without a warrant, "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or thing to be seized." "

Section 405 of the bill says that "the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review."

Friday, March 13, 2009

Despite Media Push, Doubts Grow About Obama Status

Despite a blitz by the media to marginalize those who still question the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of President, doubts continue to grow. AOL had as biased an article as could be imagined. Even I could not use any more one-sided language. The article falsely claimed that Obama has produced his actual birth certificate (rather than an image of a COLB that many experts claim has been altered) and attempted to dismiss anyone who still doubted as "Birthers". Despite the ham-fisted tactics, their own poll with a million responses still show that 49% had lingering doubts about Obama's eligibility.

There are two or three issues here. One is the question of whether Obama was really born on United States soil. The other is that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom rather than the United States he may not meet the Founders definition of a "Natural Born" (as opposed to naturalized) citizen. The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural Born citizen, but does not define that term. Contemporaries of the Founders defined a natural born citizen as one born on the soil of a country whose parents were both subjects or citizens of that country.

The third issue is related to the fact that Obama was apparently a citizen of Indonesia during his boyhood. At the time, that country did not allow for dual-citizenship. As a young man, Obama traveled to Pakistan at a time when citizens of this country were not allowed to go. Many speculate that he went on an Indonesian passport as a citizen of that country. Obama has sealed all records related to his birth, passports, boyhood in Indonesia, and college records. The latter has led to speculation that he received financial aid on the basis of foreign citizenship.

Meanwhile there are reports of shocking abuses of power in the effort to get the citizenship issue before the supreme court. Attorney Orley Taitz claims that a clerk for the Supreme Court named Bickel took it upon himself to remove the case from the list of files that the supreme court members would see, then falsified the records to make it seem like the case had already been reviewed. The account is here in the filing to reconsider the case on the grounds that it was never heard the first time due to concealment and falsefication of court records.

Cryptozoology: New Squirrel Variety Spotted in NWA

A patched squirrel spotted just north of Eureka Springs only a couple of days ago. (double click image for larger view)

William L. Woods of Rogers Arkansas offers us this photograph of a possible new variety of squirrel. I don't know of any other population of patched squirrels in the wild. It was taken only a couple of days ago slightly north and east of the old Crescent Hotel in Eureka Springs Arkansas. The hotel has quite a mysterious reputation in itself.

Only fox squirrels and grey squirrels are native to the region. Bill is an intrepid researcher and he did some asking around about the unusual squirrels. He found an old timer who told him that an elderly woman in the city once had some Japanese Albino squirrels as pets. Fearing that she would die, she released the squirrels into the wild. Bill speculates that the animals he observed (he got a glimpse of what he took to be another such animal moving through the woods about a half a mile away) might be hybrids of those released animals with the native population.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

A Dark History on Open Carry

Rep. Mark Martin has an eye-opening piece on why Arkansas and other southern states have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Benton County Foibles

Benton County Judge and former State Senator Dave Bisbee.
News from county government in Benton County continues to be disturbing. This is the premier Republican county in the state. If they can't manage their home turf well then it speaks pretty poorly about their chances of offering a competent alternative to the Democrats in 2010. Most of the controversy swirls around County Judge Dave Bisbee, a former State Senator.

First, one of his top managers announced her resignation when Bisbee appointed one of his former primary opponents to a newly created post. The primary opponent had endorsed Bisbee in the run-off for the Republican nomination, a critical factor in Bisbee's victory in that run-off election. Accusations of Quid Pro Quo abounded.

Then there was the ice-storm cleanup controversy. When the ice storm hit Bisbee rounded up every tree service the county did business with and sent them to work. Amazingly, the contracts under which they worked had a high per-tree rate and no volume discounts or caps. The contracts were written for situations where they had to take their whole crew out to cut down one tree, and that was it!

Come on. There have been ice storms in Benton County before. Couldn't they foresee such a situation? Didn't anybody read the contracts before they sent the crews out? Bisbee "renegotiated" the contracts after the fact, using the leverage that if the firms ever wanted to work for the county again they would give back the millions the contracts said they were owed for a few days work. One small service in Decatur said they could live with that, they wanted the 1.4 million dollars they got for cutting the trees. The feds will pay most of it, but of course the feds get it from us.

Now comes accusations that Bisbee's appointments to the planning commission have been done on the sly and have been drawn from one narrow group. This might be more quid-pro quo, as another former primary opponent who endorsed Bisbee for the run-off would have an interest in this matter.

Here is the letter to the editor from RJ Kossieck:

I think Judge Bisbee's "Do Right Rule" has been bent out of shape before the paint was dry. I am referring to the appointment of Lane Gurel as a member of the planning board. Although procedurally legal, the method was unethical if not downright sneaky. It was not on the published agenda and was brought up under "Other Business." Under existing Quorum Court rules, the public had no opportunity to comment on Mr. Gurel's nomination. Smart move, Judge.

I am also disappointed in the majority of the members of the Quorum Court for not recognizing this and insisting the public have input. Both new planning board members are members of ABLE and both were part of the lawsuit against the Condos. Polarized? You better believe it. Planning board activities affect everyone therefore the public should be entitled to input on the nominees.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Chuck Norris Talks Revolution

Chuck Norris has called on millions of Americans to join with him in a possible 2nd American Revolution. He doesn't need their help to win it, he just thought they might enjoy watching.
Chuck Norris is sounding downright seditious in this World Net Daily Column entitled "President of Texas". Truth is, he is just stating publicly things similar to what a whole lot of regular citizens are saying privately. You can do that when your are Chuck Norris.

He also wants to form cell groups. "For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News' Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. "

I was surprised to find that there were a number of cell groups even in Arkansas. Click here to find the groups from your state.

Yours Truly on Net Radio

Click here for the show homepage. Netcast begins at 9PM Central.

The topic tonight is "The Guide Talks With Christian Adventurer Cal Zastrow". From smuggling Bibles into communist China to protesting abortion clinics in Mississippi, Cal Zastrow has managed to live the life of a Christian adventurer while prioritizing the greatest such adventure- husband and father.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Should Have Been Sunday......

......because I am putting up a couple of theology threads right in a row today. I know I have to get back to an Arkansas focus soon.

I know that much of the debate over creation vs. evolution is "faith based" on both sides. That is to say, that people tend to believe what they want to believe and take only a superficial look at the evidence. This is unfortunate because even though the old saying is that the devil is in the details, a close look at the details actually reveals the case for the Creator.

Reasons.org has a couple of good ones up. One discusses the latest scientific evidence for or against a "multiverse". That is to say, universes beyond our own. This is important in the creation-evolution debate because if the universe is the result of Divine intervention then it opens the door to the principle of Divine intervention in the emergence and diversification of life forms. If the universe is not by accident, then the living things in it probably aren't either.

Scientists who have a philosophical bent against Divine intervention (that is, they are naturalists) have for years realized that the evidence from the natural universe strongly favors the hypothesis that the fundamental values and laws of the universe are "fine tuned" to permit life to exist. If any of these values were any different from what they are by even an extremely tiny amount, the universe would be barren of galaxies, planets, and life. Even the big bang is the creationists friend, because it states that the universe had a beginning, and that is why the most cutting-edge atheists are trying to find a way to escape the implications of the it.

To avoid the obvious conclusion that this universe is not the result of chance forces, such scientists have advanced a number of ideas to the effect that our universe is just one of many universes, perhaps even an infinite number. That gives them an "out" because there could still be no God. By chance, one of the infinite number of universes became suitable for life and here we are. We just lived in the one universe that turned out right for life.

Of course these ideas can barely be considered science at all. We can't really test whether or not an infinite number of other universes exist, in the end their evasions are just as much a matter of faith as the average person's faith in God. Still, there are measurements we can make in this universe that imply something about the possibility of the existence or non-existence of such regions. Read the link and some of its links for a fuller look, but the bottom line is that whatever slight evidence we can collect leans against the kind of multiverse they would need even being a possibility. Creation contains evidence of the glory of God.

The other piece answers the question "is junk DNA evidence for evolution?". The short answer is no. There does not appear to be much junk DNA, just DNA that we were not smart enough to figure out what it did until recently. Further, the way such DNA is distributed in certain mammals for instance, fits much more in line with the hypothesis that they were designed by a common Creator than it does the idea that they evolved from a common ancestor.

New York in Flames? If God Sent a Vision...

If God wanted to send a message to modern day USA, who would he use to deliver it? I should think that it would be someone whose life gives gravity to their words. Someone who has walked the walk is more credible when they talk the talk. By that standard, there are few more believable prospects than David Wilkerson.

In the 1970s, Wilkerson left a prosperous suburban church because he felt that God was calling him to minister to inner city youth. His story is documented in the book and film "the Cross and the Switchblade". Actor Pat Boone played the role of Wilkerson in that movie.

Wilkerson has faithfully continued his calling from the Church on Times Square and other venues since that time. There have been no public scandals, just a life well spent. Now gray-haired, Wilkerson believes that God has spoken to him again, this time with a dire warning.

Saturday he issued an email to his list that begins with these words..."I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to send out an urgent message to all on our mailing list, and to friends and to bishops we have met all over the world.


He has warned that he has seen New York in flames and has urged people there and in major cities to stockpile a 30 supply of food, water, and other essentials.

While Wilkerson has warned of rioting in New York city for years, he is now saying that it will happen near-term.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Senator Joyce Elliott Again Files Bill Giving Instate Tuition to Illegal Aliens

The Arrogance of Senator Joyce Elliott in Defying Constitution on In-state Tuition for Illegal Aliens

Senator Joyce Elliott has filed another bill to give instate tuition to illegal aliens (SB799). When Joyce Elliott was a representative in 2005, she slipped a bill passed the House that gave scholarships and instate tuition to illegals. Federal law was brought to her attention that giving instate tuition was forbidden in federal law. Upon request by a Senator, Governor Beebe (then attorney general) ruled then and says now that instate tuition for illegal aliens conflicts with federal law. She still tried to get it through the Senate in 05 after all this, but the Senate voted it down by about 2 votes.

Even in California, "A three judge panel of the California Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Monday [written September 16. 08] that a California law intended to permit illegal aliens to attend public colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates is unconstitutional because it conflicts with federal law, and violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the constitution. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS238307+16-Sep-2008+PRN20080916

Pat Reilly, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, reported May, 08. "[T]he only way foreign nationals can attend college in the United States legally is through the agency's International Student Exchange and Visitors Program. Illegal immigrants in the U.S. cannot qualify for that program, Reilly said." So it is illegal for illegal aliens to attend college at all - as anyone with common sense could surmise. http://debb-pelley.c.topica.com/maamTTyabODlnaBV5JKcaeQCRr/

Yet Joyce Elliott is persisting again on passing this bill. I believe she deserves more emails and calls than any legislator I have known in the last several years. You can leave a message for her at the Capitol Switchboard at this number during the week. 501-682-2902 By the way, Senator Elliot received a zero from American Family Association on her voting record in 2005.

Please email ALL the other legislators immediately as well and tell them what you think of this bill.

Elliot's bill can be read at this link: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Bills/SB799.pdf

Senator Joyce Elliott (D)
P. O. Box 4248
Little Rock, AR 72214
District 33
House 2001, 2003, 2005, Senate 2009

Obamas' Serving $100 a Serving Wagyu Steak at White House Parties

I heard Lou Dobb on CNN say last week that the President & Michelle Obama were serving wagyu steak (and other delicacies) at parties at the White House that costs $100.00 a serving. And they are partying a lot! And just how does the President have time to party this much with all the problems with which he is dealing?

At least one party included the Washington elite legislators. Excerpt from two articles posted below: This quote sums it up for me: "It is an outrage for Barack and Michelle Obama to party on, as Rome burns. It's like throwing a party at a funeral," he said. There is a link to a poll in which you can vote on this issue at the very end of this email. Obama's comment line is 1-202-456-1111. I think we should keep it hot.

Michell Malkin writes: "President Obama, celebrated by his liberal media admirers for a miraculous ability to groove with the common man, hasn’t yet caught on to the new age of individual austerity.

"As always, he talks a good game of “personal responsibility” and “sacrifice.” But while penny-pinching Americans head to Sonic Drive-Ins for $1 everyday value meals or stay at home for cheap cube-steak dinners (sales of the inexpensive meat are up 10 percent), the White House serves up high-grade Wagyu beef to congressional revelers.

"The luxury item was on the menu for the bipartisan stimulus dinner in January and was also served up at the governors’ dinner hosted at the White House two weeks ago. (In another article she says, Yeah, “wagyu steak.” $100 per serving delicacy. I had to look it up, too.) "http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/06/cube-steak-americans-vs-the-wagyu-beef-white-house/

White House nightlife under investigation
As WND reported this week, Freedom Watch is seeking information from the federal government on who had input into bailout legislation and whether they got anything in return.
Klayman said the reports of the partying at the White House, "with the likes of Steve Wonder and other high priced entertainment stars," will be the focus of document requests being submitted to the General Services Administration. The requests will seek to determine how much taxpayer money is being used.

"Barack and Michelle Obama have been throwing taxpayer funded parties nearly every night with their 'friends' and supporters, with Michelle Obama even exhorting them not to 'break' White House property," Klayman's announcement said.

"This party atmosphere sends the wrong message to the American people. As the Obama-Clinton crowd party on, the American people are suffering greatly," Klayman said.

"It was right to criticize corporate execs for using taxpayer bailout money on bonuses and corporate junkets. In the face of this criticism, it is an outrage for Barack and Michelle Obama to party on, as Rome burns. It's like throwing a party at a funeral," he said.
If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.


Liberal NPR News Analyst Says Left More Vicious Than Conservatives

Everytime the conservatives put out the truth, liberals accuse them of being liars, narrow minded, hateful, biased, prejudiced, race mongering, and the lists goes on and on. Liberals' language itself reflects their attitudes, but they seem to be so blind that they cannot see how hate-filled their language really is. Just read some of their comments on this blog, the most recent one on ERA.

However, "Recently African American liberal political analyst for NPR and journalist Juan Williams admitted that he has found liberals to be more closely knit and close minded than conservatives. He came to that conclusion after receiving an inordinate amount of hate mail from, of all people, liberals. The hate mail was prompted by Juan Williams' disagreement with liberal policy in one area. For that, liberals blasted him and he stated that he was more maligned and attacked by liberals, whose side he is on, than he ever was by conservatives."

See this link for the article that includes the above quote written by a homosexual who agrees wholehearted with Juan on this issue. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977616986&nav=Groupspace&grpId=3659174697241619 Following is a quote from the homosexual. "This episode revealed that, as Juan Williams pointed out, liberals are horrible at handling differences of opinion and that if one strays from liberal orthodoxy, liberals go haywire and become much more hateful than do conservatives."

See this link for a you tube video of Williams exact comments written above: http://americanglob.com/2009/03/03/fox-news-juan-williams-discovers-the-viciousness-of-the-american-left/

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Surplus Continues to Pile Up in Arkansas Treasury

Official state portrait of Arkansas Governor Elisha Baxter 1873-74.
The Federal government may be hopelessly in debt, and states from sea to shining sea are facing massive budget shortfalls, but Arkansas continues to pile up a surplus, 30 million above forecasts last month alone. That adds to the pile of 300 million dollars in surplus that is already sitting in the state Treasury.

There is no assurance revenues will continue to come in high, but the bubble of the last decade mostly missed our state. Since we were not artificially pumped up, we did not have as far to fall. But the same could be said of several states, and their state governments have still managed to get them in fiscal trouble.

The real credit for the strong fiscal position of this state goes to men who lived 130 years ago. It was not our current crop of leaders who insisted on a balance budget, it was the dead white guys who wrote our state constitution in 1873. It is not our current crop who insist on a 3/4ths majority before the state can raise your taxes, it was men who lived 130 years ago. It is not the people we have currently elected to the state legislature who made it so hard for the state to borrow against the future earnings of the people, but rather those great statesman who lived 130 years ago.

It is sad to see how far we have fallen from the times of those wise and independent spirits who erected barriers to prevent the curse of massive government. Now, usually with the approval of the people, our current leaders try every thing they can to undo the wisdom of our state fathers. While they have not found a way around the balanced budget amendment, they have chipped away at the original prohibitions against debt so that now we use debt even when we could use cash- a policy that will enrich the financers. They have undermined the intent of the constitution by inventing new taxes, and then claiming that those taxes do not require a 3/4th majority to pass since they were not in existence at the time of the constitution's adoption. This is a dubious claim.

Because they have spent the last 80 years chipping away at what protected us from the curse of huge government, government has grown. And make no mistake about it, big government is a judgment of God. It has been since at least 1st Samuel Chapter 8. It is a curse that happens to people who can't govern themselves. It is a yoke of oppression placed on those who are envious of their neighbor's earnings. It is a reproach on the wealthy of a society who fail to find joy in private giving to the poor; joyless taxation for the welfare state then attempts to replace the absent private charity.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

ERA - Equal Rights for Women Fraud

ERA bill HJR1014 has been filed in Arkansas House by Lindsley Smith and SJR12 in the Senate by Senator Sue Madison. The Senate Committee defeated the ERA Amendment. The House bill has not yet been brought up in the House Agenices committee.

Sponsors of the bills by Rep. Lindsley Smith (and Senator Sue Madison (SJR12), both of Fayetteville want to make you think this ERA bill is designed to be fair to women. This is just rhetoric to make men feel it a duty to vote for it in order to make men look like they are not discriminating against women. This bill has nothing to do with equality for women. Those laws are already in place.

What the amendment is really designed to do:
Promote Tax Funded Abortion, Homosexuality, and Nullify Marriage Amendments, etc.

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” is the way the amendment reads. However it does not define whether sex is what you are or what you do. Senator Sam Irvin, considered then [in 1970's] the leading legal authority in the Senate, said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals.

If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.

Hawaii okayed same sex marriage based on the state's ERA. Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn't mean that.

A Judge in Iowa used ERA language to overturn Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2007. http://arkjournal.com/2007/09/iowa-gay-marriage-era-implications.html

In Maryland the Court said I am coming down boldly and 100% on ERA, and they threw out the state marriage law. That case was appealed but I don't know the result of that appeal.

It can be used by activist judges to strike down all state marriage amendments and statutory bans, including Arkansas’ constitutional amendment.

I am sure it could be used by an activist judge to nullify our ban on homosexual adoption ban that we won in our last election too.

ERA has been used as the legal basis for court-mandated, Government Funded Abortions. A Connecticut Superior Court held that the state ERA required public funding of abortions.

"Since only women become pregnant, discrimination against pregnancy by not funding abortions . . . is sex-oriented discrimination . . . . The Court concludes that the regulation that restricts the funding for abortions. . violates Connecticut's Equal Rights Amendment." (Doe v. Maher, 515 A. 2d 134, 162 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1986). Only one state court, Pennsylvania's, has said that its state ERA does not require public funding for abortions.

The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women; therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment.

New Mexico's ERA law is same as wording for the ERA amendment. New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico.

ERA pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and the proponents of the measure were not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do. In 2007 in Arkansas during testimony, its sponsor, Lindsley Smith, and now Senator Joyce Elliott were asked repeatedly to give even one specific benefit or correction that the ERA could make for women. They failed to give even one that was not proven to be an obvious smokescreen by the opponents of the bill.

See this link for the transcription of Phyllis Schlafly's testimony against this bill in the Arkansas House in 2007 for many other unbelievable negative consequences of this ERA Amendment: http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm

Democrats Voted Down States Rights Resolution

State Sovereignty Movement

Thirty states already are, are now claiming, or are planning for declaration of sovereignty. A freshman Republican legislator, Rep. Hobbs, introduced a sovereignty resolution HCR1011 in Arkansas which was voted down in committee in the House State Agencies committee yesterday. It will be voted on again in the committee tomorrow.

On the other hand, Oklahoma adopted a similar resolution by a wide margin, 83 to 13 in February of this year, 2009. For information on each state and what they have done, see this link: http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/ For a copy of the bill in Arkansas see this link: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HCR1011

The sponsor of the resolution [in Oklahoma], state Rep. Charles Key, said the measure was a 'big step toward addressing the biggest problem we have in this country – the federal government violating the supreme law of the land." Key also said that "whenever we allow the federal government, or any other government entity, to violate the Constitution, we destroy the Constitution one piece at a time...The federal government must honor and obey the Constitution, just like the states and this citizens of this country are obligated to do, or our system of government begins to fall apart. We have gone so far down that path that the Constitution is hanging by a thread right now," he said.

These above quotes of Charles Key sum up the feeling of millions of people in our country. This State Sovereignty Movement grew out of this frustration. Many people are concerned about the mandates the federal government may place on gun rights, abortion, homosexual marriage, martial law, and the unfunded mandates the government places on states like in the stimulus package that some governors are refusing.

These resolutions are typically nonbinding and are saying no more than what is already stated in simpler form in the Constitution, but they give legislators a platform to stand against the federal government's rampant usurpation of power not granted to it by the Constitution. These state sovereignty resolutions are a good way to remind citizens and the federal government of the ninth and tenth amendments.

The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Why wouldn't anyone be concerned about the encroachment of federal powers when we see such power emanating from Washington, from both the Republican and Democratic Presidents and Parties? And why would any legislator want to vote against the ninth and tenth amendment of the Constitution?

All the Republicans on the committee voted for the Resolution. All the Democrats voted against it. We hope those Democrats who voted against this resolution in committee yesterday will change their minds:

CHAIRMAN: Rep. Rick Saunders (D) - Garland - saundersr@arkleg.state.ar.us
VICE CHAIRMAN: Rep.Eddie Cheatham (D) - Ashley - cheathame@arkleg.state.ar.us Representative Lindsley Smith (D) - Washington - smithl@arkleg.state.ar.us
Representative Steve Harrelson (D) - Miller - steve@steveharrelson.com
Representative Gene Shelby (D) - Garland - 501 - shelbyg@arkleg.state.ar.usRepresentative Clark Hall (D) - Phillips - hallc@arkleg.state.ar.usRepresentative Larry Cowling (D) - Little River - cowlingl@arkleg.state.ar.us
Representative Butch Wilkins (D) - Craighead - wilkinsb@arkleg.state.ar.us Representative Uvalde Lindsey (D) - Washington - mailto:-uvalde.lindsey@gmail.com Representative Linda Tyler (D) - Faulkner - tylerl@arkleg.state.ar.us Representative Tiffany Rogers (D) - Arkansas - mailto:-Rogerst@arkleg.state.ar.us

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Texas National Guard On High Alert For First Time In Decades

The border crossings between Texas and Mexico are erupting into protests and violence. Texas Governor Rick Perry is not waiting for the Federal government to provide security. He has put the Texas National Guard on High Alert for the first time in my memory.

At the link there is a FOX News clip in which a Texas state senator gives more details, and a clip of a platoon or possibly company sized shoot-out between Mexican troops and soldiers for the drug lords.

President Calderon of Mexico is taking on the drug lords, and they are responding with a fit of violence.

Our Governor, Mike Beebe, refuses to act on illegal immigration and associated problems, preferring to retreat into the convenient fantasy that it is strictly a federal responsibility. The Texans cannot afford to indulge such delusions.