One of the more telling signs of the growing chasm between the common citizen and our ruling class and their media is the abuse of the words “extreme”, “extremism” and “ideologue” when describing domestic American politics. What’s commonly at the root of the abuse is the lack of a reference point combined with a malicious intent. These descriptors are regularly employed as a bludgeon to drive the populace away from a position that is disfavored among the ruling class. Even if an idea enjoys wide support among the nation as a whole, it too often winds up being described as “extreme”, and those who support the policy as “extremists” or “ideologues.”
For example, Arizona’s law authorizing state law enforcement officials to police for illegal immigrants under the same conditions as federal law enforcement has been described as “extreme.” Polls show clear majorities in Arizona and the nation support the measure. A policy which enjoys such broad support cannot accurately be described as “extreme” if the views of the populace are the reference point for what is “extreme” and what is not.
Clearly then at least one of two things are true: 1) such media are not attempting to be accurate in describing support for a given policy. They are rather attempting to drive support one direction or another. The other possibility is 2) these media are self-referential. If their tiny subgroup considers a policy as “extreme” then they report it as such, regardless of its support in the general population. It is they themselves that hold the “extreme” position relative to the people they are reporting to. Yet because they consider themselves the ultimate filter through which all truth must pass, they report the status of the policy to the inverse of its actual status.
Similar attempts to smear people who stick to principles in public policy debates involve the use of the word “ideologue.” They often use it like it is automatically a bad thing. An ideologue is just someone with an ideology. An ideology is an integrated system of thought about life or human culture. An ideologue can be defined as someone who adheres to an integrated system of thought. The kind of integration necessary for logical consistency, for example. There is nothing bad about that in itself. It’s the ideas that should be judged, not the practice of being logical and systematic in the application of the ideas which one might hold.
The truth is that our political system, including much of the media, does besmirch those with a firm ideology. People with an ideology are too hard to manipulate. Our rulers would prefer that our emotions, not our ideals, controlled our lives. That’s because emotions are much easier to manipulate. Men who don’t follow ideals wind up following personalities. Men who have no ideals for which they will stand will soon find themselves kneeling.
America is the ideological nation. We are not, like other countries, founded from a common ethnicity or language or geographical origin. No, our country is the one nation on earth founded on ideals. We are united by them, and not by those other things. When our Declaration says that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, those are the words of an ideologue. We must be ever cautious that whatever ideology we hold conforms to the truth, but God forbid that we be intimidated out of ever holding one. For if we do we forfeit the very way of thinking which animates our rights. To forsake ideals and ideology is to forsake the very foundations of our country.
This incident occurred at Bella Vista Baptist Church during a recent special election. Petitioners from Secure Arkansas were asking voters to sign a petition to place on the ballot for voter approval a law that would ban persons illegally in this state from getting access to public benefits. The election official incorrectly thought the petitioners did not have a right to gather signatures at a polling place. They do as long as they are 100 feet from the entrance. Notice how he got physical with the person holding the camera, then falsely accused them of getting physical with HIM, even though the truth was recorded right there on camera.
It is my observation that many members of our ruling class, and their lackeys, are indignant and offended at the very idea that average people can petition to have the rules by which we lived altered. Nevertheless it is the right of the people to petition for redress of grievences. I hope that during the run-off on June 8th that election officials conduct themselves in a more civilized manner than this one did. It is my understanding that Secure Arkansas is looking for folks to petition at polling places again. Hopefully this time without physical intimidation from election officials who don't know election law.
Patriots on Watch Radio- Rand Paul Race Card Ambush
"Leftists aren't playing with a full deck. All they seem to have are race cards".
I talk about the controversy over Rand Paul's doubts over the tenth part of the Civil Rights Act. This was the part that banned private business from refusing to serve a customer on account of race. With trepidation, I attempt to talk about the matter in terms of policy, precedent, and unintended consequences.
He is not the only potential challenger for Governor. If the Constitution Party gets ballot access, Mayor Frank Gilbert will be their candidate. You can hear him on this interview, fast forward about 10 minutes or so.
Reformers in Arkansas took a beating in the recent Republican primary elections. Sometimes when we don't get what we pray for, its because God wants us to consider another direction. Mark talks about that, and what the other direction might be. Also, Conservatism- "you better look that up, I don't think it means what you think it means"
Across the country it seems like more and more Americans are worried that the country is headed in the wrong direction. This primary season has been marked by justifiably outraged citizens across the country ending the political careers of politicians they considered close to the “establishment”.
This was seen out west in Utah where incumbent Senator Bob Bennett finished 3rd of three in his state Republican caucus. He will not be on the ballot in November. It was seen in the east, were Virginia Democrats sent home a ten term incumbent Congressman who backed too much spending. It’s happening in the north where Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. It’s happening in the middle of the country where Rand Paul, son of the libertarian-leaning Texas Congressman Ron Paul, beat the establishment’s pick for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
It’s happening all of those places, but for some reason its not happening here. I love this state and its people, but I am often frustrated by the disconnect between what the average person says they want and the way that the vote comes out on election day. Are Arkansans out of step with the mood of the nation? If so, why?
Blanche Lincoln is in a run-off, but she is being challenged from the left. Her opponent Bill Halter does not fault her for a failure to hold down government spending, but rather for not growing it fast enough. Republican voters claimed to be upset about the bailouts, but then they elected John Boozman, the only guy in the eight man field who voted for the bailouts. Were that his only big-government vote it would be bad enough, but his recent record is one of consistently voting for bigger spending and passing it on to the next generation in the form of more debt. If people really did not want more government spending and debt, they had a perfect chance to express it. Instead, regardless of what they may claim that they want, they voted for more of the same.
That was not the only race where the pattern held. In the 2nd congressional district, Tim Griffin was an insider and he handily beat his outsider opponent. In the 3rd district, there really was not a candidate connected to the Washington establishment to the extent that Boozman and Griffin are, but still the two candidates who could most fairly be described as being insiders, Womack and Bledsoe, are in the run-off.
Voters here think of themselves as “conservative”. John Boozman ran as a “conservative”. My idea of what that means must be different from theirs. I think of a conservative as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and that essential power should be exercised at the lowest possible level rather than be consolidated in a distant national capitol. It’s based on skepticism about what government can do, and an awareness that human beings are very corruptible by power.
I suspect that another definition of “conservative” prevails in Arkansas. That is the idea that the people who have been running things should continue to run them, regardless of performance. It’s less about ideas than social connections. I understand that people, especially those whose lives are going well, are reluctant to vote for outsiders. They want to keep what they have. Trouble is, we are in a situation where we have to change our political habits just to keep what we have. The only rational way to judge a politician is by what they have done, not what they say or how nice they seem.
The Continuity of Government program is concealed from even most members of Congress. It has established a framework by which the Feds would suspend the Constitution and seize direct control of state and local government in case of a "national emergency". Read more about this madness on LewRockwell.
Is Arkansas out of step? Voters across the country are tossing establishment politicians out on their ears. Here, especially on the Republican side, the establishment candidates won.
Has the Christian Right left their first love? Is the Christian right losing sight of its foundations, just like the Christian left did two generations ago? The "Emerging Church" bears striking similarities to the old Christian left.
Also, a good start in Arizona. States better make back up plans, not just in immigration enforcement but in everything the Federal government ought to do.
The Duggars, edition 2.0. Josh, Anna, and Mackynzie Renée.
I met up with the Duggars on election night. Josh and Anna told me that the Washington County Registrar claimed to have no voting records for Anna. After some looking around, they gave her a contested ballot and put it in a separate location. No word if it has ever been counted. The odd thing is, they both voted in the 08 elections. Josh confirms that nothing has changed since that time. They live in the same address for example.
We joked that Blanche Lincoln got her vote when she voted twice, but the substance of the incident is not funny. Half the country knows where this young lady has been for the last two years. If her records can be lost, so can yours or mine.
Congratulations to John Boozman, Mark Darr, Rick Crawford, and all of the other candidates who were able to win last night.
As has been the case in recent years, the men I supported did not win the election. I am used to that. It seems I have been lied to about some polling data, given the business I am in I don't know why I should be surprised. I am sure that other Christians joined me in praying for the election outcomes yesterday. When you do that, you have to accept what happens. Congratulations again to the winners.
If the Constitution Party can get the 10K signatures needed for ballot access, we may be hearing and seeing more from this clip. Not for the Lincoln race, the CP has vowed not to run any candidates for federal offices, but to find an opponent for the currently unopposed Dustin McDaniel.
I don't expect to have much to say here until 9PM, but I wanted to leave a place for you to make your election day comments and observations. Turnout was very heavy in my neck of the woods (Benton County). Some thought the high early voting total would hold down the election day total. From here it looks more like a predictor of very heavy over all turnout.
Below is the press release Holt's campaign sent out today on a robocall by Marvin Parks on behalf of Gilbert Baker. This is the text of the main portion of the robocall to which the Holt press release was referring:
“Over the years I have watched Jim Holt use misleading and distorting campaign tactics for his own personal gain,” says Parks in the call. “This election is no different. This time he is distorting Gilbert Baker’s conservative record of cutting your taxes and balancing Arkansans budget in an attempt to win votes. Mr. Holt has tried these losing tactics before. He has also lost to Blanche Lincoln in 2004 and Bill Halter in 2006. It is time for something different.”
JIM HOLT FOR U.S. SENATE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, May 17, 2010CONTACT: Dwayne Andregg
Holt calls for 'Politics Unusual' SPRINGDALE, AR — As we come into the final hours of the Arkansas primary, an opponent of Jim Holt has attacked and tried to defame Holt's character through a robocall accusing Holt of "distorting" his opponent's record.
"First of all, our campaign didn't even compile the voting records The Women's Action Group did the research and published them. I believe all the members are retired school teachers," said Holt. "We asked them if we could reproduce them and hand them out and they said, yes. We are grateful for their willingness to inform the public. Thomas Jefferson said that whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government," elaborated Holt.
"I think everyone would agree that we're tired of negative campaigning. It's sad really," Holt said. "I know the person that did the robocall is a friend of Gilbert's but I also think the people of Arkansas would be disheartened to know he is a registered lobbyist – this is a documented fact." (Source: http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/filing_search/index.php/filing/save_pdf/10390)
"This proves what everyone in-the-know, already knows: Gilbert is another establishment candidate that has raised over a million dollars with the help from lobbyists. We haven't received one penny of lobbyist or D.C. money. I believe this puts our campaign in the best position for what people are really looking for: someone who doesn't cater to the special interests and 'insider' politics.
People are tired of establishment candidates running campaigns the same ol' way. They're tired of politics as usual. It's time to stick to the truth and documented facts," said Holt. "I am the U.S. Senate Candidate that has the most anti-establishment, anti-tax, anti growth in government record there is – period! And I have the record to prove it. I can't take the credit though. That goes to my upbringing, my accountability partners and God's grace. I thank the Lord for that. I want people to look at my record. How many people do you know want you to 'look under the hood?' I do."
"We will not slander or use negative campaign tactics or adjectives that would put a political 'spin' on the issues. We know people don't want politics as usual. They want politics Unusual. They want politics done with honesty and documentation to empower, 'We the People.' That's why we have so many people fired up and helping in our campaign." Holt said.
Andregg said "The only 'Documented Facts' contained in the call are the statements that Holt lost to both Lincoln in '04, and Halter and '06. But even this is not giving all the facts. Lincoln was at 70% in approval rating and she spent 6.7 million to Jim's 148,000. Now her approval is at approximately 27%. The seat was not a 'targeted race in '04, it is now. Whoever the nominee is, they will be funded.
New KOS poll - Senate Race Still Headed for Holt/Boozman Run-Off
With just five days before the Arkansas primary elections, the new May 13 Daily KOS poll still indicates that the eight man race for the Republican nomination may well be coming down to a two-man race — John Boozman and Jim Holt.
The Daily KOS poll released yesterday, May 13, still shows no candidate winning the majority necessary to avoid a run-off election. Not only is Jim Holt 2nd in the poll but also has moved up two percentage points since the last poll and moved up from six percentage points to seven percentage points above Senator Gilbert Baker. And the front runner, Congress John Boozman, polled two percentage points lower than in the last Mason Dixon poll conducted May 6 by Stephens Media. (See links to the poll at end of this Press Release)
This Daily KOS poll includes much more information than the Mason Dixon poll did. It ranks all the candidates favorable and unfavorable ratings by all demographic groups. In today's poll Jim Holt's favorable rating is very close to that of Congressman Boozman's. Among likely Republican primary voters Boozman's favorable rating is 72% and his unfavorable rating is 15%. Jim Holt's favorable rating is 67% and unfavorable 11%.
Boozman's unfavorable rating is actually 4 percentage points higher than Holt's among likely Republican primary voters. That is quite astounding considering all the positive media coverage Boozman has received and the hundreds of TV ads he has run, and the lack of coverage and/or negative coverage of Jim Holt's race and with no TV ads. And Holt is on the way up according to the poll and has the momentum on the campaign trail. Holt has run a few radio ads this week and will be running more in the next few days.
Not only is Holt seven percentage points above Senator Baker's in this poll, but his favorable ratings are also six percentage points better than Baker's among likely Republican primary voters. And Baker's unfavorable ratings are 6 percentage points higher than Holt's. Again, this is astounding considering Baker has raised a million dollars and has been running TV ads for some time now.
"The grass roots are truly amazing," Jim Holt said, "We are so very grateful for all the work our supporters have done and continue to do. And if elected, we will work for them and their interests just as they are working for us in this campaign."
"We're pleased that we are second in the poll, Holt continued. "We realize it is an uphill battle, but our supporters are fired up! We hope and pray the supporters of the other six candidates will rally behind us when we make the run-off. Once people see our voting record of less government control and spending, we'll win by a landslide! It's not even close"
Arkansas voters will cast primary ballots this coming Tuesday. At stake are the nominations for U.S. Senate. A recent Arkansas News Bureau/Stephens Media poll shows anti-incumbent fever is alive and well in Razorback country, but, in a replay of the Indiana primary two weeks ago, Republicans will choose among top-down establishment candidate John Boozman, establishment stalking horse Gilbert Baker, and dyed-in-the-wool conservative Jim Holt, along with various conservative small fries.
The poll shows Boozman with the lead, Holt comfortably in second place, Baker a distant third, 15 percent undecided, and the others in single digits. Unlike the Indiana primary, where 60 percent of Hoosier Republicans voted against plurality winner Dan Coats, if no one garners more than 50 percent in Arkansas, then a runoff will occur between the top two vote getters.
Holt’s record as a proven limited-government taxpayer advocate versus Boozman’s well-established vote for spending increases and earmarks should bode well in a runoff. With establishment Republican funding channeled to Boozman and Baker, Holt is an underdog in money and is reliant upon volunteers.
On the Leftist side, incumbent Blanche Lincoln is in the fight of her career against fellow Democrat Bill Halter. While Lincoln leads Halter, her pathetic poll showings indicate that Halter has a good chance at pulling off an upset.
WOW! New Poll Shows Womack and Maddox Headed For Run Off in 3rd!
********Maddox********************Womack********* Many of you know that for the last few days I have been trying to tease some poll results for the 3rd District GOP Congressional race. I theorized that the lack of news meant unflattering results for the perceived favorites in the race. Finally, tonight (and if they really wanted this out badly, they probably would have had a proper press release instead of leaking it to a blogger on Friday evening) I was leaked something that has as its biggest shocker something that is multi-source verified....
Steve Womack 21% Kurt Maddox 15% Cecile Bledsoe 12% Bernie Skoch 7% Gunner DeLay 7% Mike Moore 5% Doug Matayo 3% Steve Lowery 3%
Kurt Madddox has emerged as the clear conservative frontrunner in the race for Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District.
In what could be the political upset of the decade in western Arkansas, the self-described "outsider" Maddox has gained sustained momentum for the past two weeks and could be difficult to stop. It would shock the establishment. Kurt Maddox does not have their permission to win this race!
The 2nd place mantle had previously gone to State Sen. Cecille Bledsoe but she shares much of the same Rogers base with Mayor Steve Womack. The insider polling indicates Womack has solidified a strong base in the largest Benton County city -- which left a clear opening for a solid conservative to move into second place.
Conservative activists had worried that many of the "true-believing conservatives" would divide the base and allow two moderate Republicans to appear in the runoff. Maddox's unexpectedly strong grassroots campaign put those concerns to rest.
In recent weeks, the eight different campaigns went remarkably quiet, making it obvious that shifts were underway. The perceived frontrunners are obviously unhappy with the trends.
Arkansas Watch, however, has sources from two different campaigns verifying that the runoff will likely be between Womack and Maddox. Womack operatives are reportedly telling it to insiders as well.
The Maddox campaign has been somewhat unconventional. He has refused to accept special interests dollars, and asked his opponents to join him in what he called "the Razorback Pledge." Along with refusing special interest dollars, the "Razorback Pledge" also includes a self-imposed term-limit pledge and a pledge to give half his congressional pay to charities in the 3rd district.
In the interests of full disclosure, I did a limited amount of consulting work for the Maddox campaign early in the race. Nothing recently.
I recently gave my deconstruction of Judge Piazza's ruling on Initiated Act One. That was the voter-passed act which barred co-habiting persons from adopting children. The act was in response to a previous court decision which threw out a ban on homosexuals adopting children.
The Dem Zette had a recent article about it, spewing their usual absurdities. I won't link to that article, because the Dem Zette has sealed off internet content to non-payers. Suits me. Truth starved masses can continue to come to me and others like me for information that is better than what you are paying them for. That does not mean that I won't deconstruct their article, and some more judicial-speak as well.
When the ban on homosexual adoptions was thrown out, the leftist judge in that case decided that the ban was too narrow, and thus "unconstitutional". The leftist judge in this case, Piazza, decided that the new law banning cohabiting couples was "too broad" and thus unconstitutional.
Neat how that works huh? Something does not have to violate an actual provision of the text of the constitution in order to be "unconstitutional", as that has simply become a code-word to mean "something that leftist judges don't like". It's always going to be either too broad or too narrow unless it is structured in such a way that it denies absolute truth. The reigning court philosophy is Judicial Nihlism. No wonder they just make up rulings by their personal preferences one case at a time!
I have to give Judge Chris Piazza credit for one thing, and its a big one. I would be a small man if I only assayed blame when due but never credit where credit was due. There are men walking the earth today mistakenly convinced that I hate them because of the way I describe their actions. It's rubbish. I bear no man ill-will. If they would do that which is right, I would be among those who praise their deeds.
Judge Piazza ruled that the ban could stay in effect until the State Supreme court rules on the issue. He could have stopped the ban from taking effect. Children caught in the crossfire could get yanked around depending which way the Supreme Court rules. Keeping the ban in place while the appeal was in the works was the sensible move that showed concern for the children caught in the middle of this and possibly respect for the will of the voters.
The state does not want to touch this hot potato. They are suspending all pending adoptions to cohabiting persons until this is resolved. Hey, the state workers always wanted to protect the children, that's why they originally had the ban on homosexual adoptions until a judge tossed it.
The ACLU's Holly Dickson had less concern for those factors than for pushing the homosexual agenda. She protested keeping the ban in effect until this is sorted out by saying, "There is clearly a shortage of good homes in this state." Yes there is, but assuming that the homes of cohabiting individuals, say practicing homosexuals, are good homes is begging the precise question voters thought they were answering when they passed the ban into law.
There were a couple of quotes from the Dem-Gaz article I thought were pretty rich. I'll pan them on the jump......
Blanche Lincoln (D) 46 Bill Halter (D) 37 D.C. Morrison (D) 6 Undecided 11
John Boozman (R) 46 Jim Holt (R) 19 Gilbert Baker (R) 12 Kim Hendren (R) 6 Curtis Coleman (R) 2 Other 2 Undecided 13
For those who lean toward the Tea Party, there is only one move that makes sense. There is only one outsider who has a chance to force a run-off with Bailout Boozman. That's Jim Holt. Even those who favor another outsider candidate should consider switching their vote to Holt in order to prevent a Baker-Boozman insider run-off. Try to look at it with logic rather than emotion. None of the others have a reasonable chance of landing a run-off spot at this point.
If you can't bear the thought of voting for anyone else besides your chosen champion, then I would next implore you to at least go ahead and vote. The only outsider with a chance faces two problems. One is getting past Baker, and the other is holding Boozman below 50%. A voter who supports one of the down-list candidates who decides to vote strategically for Holt helps with both problems. The down-list supporter who still votes for their down-lister still helps with the second problem by adding an additional vote. So if you can bear to, vote strategically, but even if your guy is sure to lose, at least vote.
Boozman Touts Less Government Spending - Astounding Statment
Jim Holt Press Release today, May 12, 2010
Congressman John Boozman Touts Less Government Spending – Astounding!
Congressman John Boozman has stated in his speeches that he has not raised any taxes. That is an astounding statement since he voted for the $700 billion TARP bailout bill, the Prescription Drug Plan with a ten-year cost of $350 billion, for the first $150 billion dollar stimulus bill in 2008, and voted for increased budgets and spending bills by the billions time after time during his nine years in office.
Boozman also voted to increase spending for foreign aid; education, welfare, food stamps, United Nations, Aid to Mexican military, and many others, billions at a time. Yet Boozman says he has not raised taxes.
"Then where is the money coming from, John, "if you are not raising taxes? Holt asks.
"We don't like negative campaigning at all, but we don't feel it's negative campaigning if we talk about the voting records of current legislators. We are running against Blanche Lincoln because of her voting record in the US Senate. Most Politicians are likeable (except Bill Halter). Blanche Lincoln and John Boozman are two of the nicest people you would meet, but we are running against them because they have both spent our country into oblivion and it is TIME TO STOP!" In his latest email to voters Boozman's campaign manager touts "John’s message of lower taxes, less government spending, and his continued fight against the President’s big government polices."
"Boozman may be able to say technically that he did not raise any taxes since he probably did not actually vote for increased taxes, and can possibly say that he has a message of (talks about) less government spending," Holt said. "But if the voters don't begin to look behind what the definition of "is" is they are going to be sending the same big spenders back to Washington."
Washington and Arkansas politicians have cooked up a new scheme whereby they can spend like drunken sailors but can still say they did not vote for increased taxes. In Washington they just spend us into economic disaster by increasing the national debt, laying the burden on the backs of our children, and decreasing the value of the dollar. Then they can come back home and individually say they did not vote for new taxes. That way they keep their voters happy and onboard. "Adding to our national debt and laying the burden on the backs of our children is just as immoral as raising our taxes," Holt said. "And decreasing the value of the dollar has the same effect as increasing taxes."
In Arkansas some legislators actually vote for the bills that increase spending on various things and then vote against the bill that appropriates the funds for it and contend that they have not voted for new taxes.
"If the voters across the state actually knew the amount of spending Boozman and Baker voted for," Holt said, "we would win in a landslide."
"I think we have done a better job," Holt continued, "of bringing those voting records to the attention of the people and educating them about the deceptive tactics used by candidates than any other campaign has done in the past. We think that will make a difference not only in this race but also in political races to come."
Jim Holt's Press Release Today, May 12, 2010 (Baker and Holt are candidates for US Senate for seat now held by Senator Blanche Lincoln.)
Baker Signed No Tax Pledge in 2000 - But Voted for At Least $3 billion in Spending Who is the True Conservative, Holt or Baker?
Senator Gilbert Baker voted for a minimum of $3 billion in spending in two legislative sessions in the State Senate and voted for the Arkansas sales tax increase - now he is using deceptive language to tout his accomplishments as a "fiscal conservative" and make it appear as if he never voted for any taxes. 1
Baker included the following information in his latest flyer.
"FISCAL CONSERVATIVE – As Co-Chairman of Arkansas's Joint Budget Committee, Baker worked to balance Arkansas' budget without deficit spending or tax increases. Baker supports a FEDERL BALANCED BUDGET, opposes pork-barrel spending, and has pledged to vote against all tax increases." (Underlining added)
"Of course, Arkansas, unlike the nation and some other states, is required by law to have a balanced budget and no deficit spending -- every legislator knows that. But Baker is making it appear that he balanced the budget without deficits." Holt said.
"Baker now says that he pledges to vote against all tax increases, but he doesn't say that he made a NO TAX Pledge when he went to the Arkansas Senate in 2000 as well -- and then voted for more than $3 billion in spending within two legislative sessions in 2003 through 2005," Holt continued. 2
In a recent debate Jim Holt confronted Baker with his No Tax Pledge in 2000 and on the $3 billion for which he voted in the Senate. Baker did not deny the No Tax Pledge in 2001 or the $3 billion in spending -- he only implied he had kept the No Tax Pledge for the first two years in office.
Baker was also in office during the same ten years that Americans for Prosperity's press released pointed out that Arkansas has the 5th fastest growing government in the nation from 2000 to 2010.
"Since February 2000, Arkansas state government has added 14,300 jobs. That adds up to an additional cost to tax payers of approximately $685 million per year," this national organization reported.
"I am not aware of any significant votes that Baker made to prevent the growth of government and spending," Holt said, "but am aware of many votes he made that did expand government and increase spending."
"Baker's vote for consolidation is another area," Jim Holt said, "that Baker has voted for bigger government and spending." Baker voted for every consolidation bill that came through the senate, even for isolated districts.
Consolidation was sold as a way to cut educational expenses by cutting the number of superintendents and eliminating teachers who had extremely small classes in the smaller schools. But now we learn from Tim Leathers, State Revenue commissioner, "There has been an increase in public school employees, who do not show up in the total number of people employed by the state. Thanks in part to the state spending heavily on public schools, payrolls - teachers, district staff and co-op employees - increased from 58,227 jobs in 2000 to 70,051 in 2009, up about 20 percent." 3
In reality then, Baker helped cut out about 60 superintendents or so but added almost 12,000 other new education employees in the public schools when Baker voted for consolidation, increasing spending and government control.
Baker also voted for the Omnibus that implemented No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in Arkansas that took over the curriculum and the local control in Arkansas schools. The Omnibus bill also set forth standards that could easily close or consolidate more schools if schools did not meet the government standards. As noted in the increases of educational employees, it takes a massive bureaucracy to control and oversee our schools.
"Besides the spending aspect, taking control away from the local community and putting children on the bus for three hours or more a day is just not reasonable, right or even moral." Holt said.
Baker & Boozman Disagree - Holt and Conservatives Agree
(Baker, Boozman, and Holt Are all Candidates for AR US Senate - Senator Lincoln's Seat)
In a Democrat Gazette article Baker is quoted as saying that Boozman shouldn't have voted for the TARP Bailout bill in Congress. Boozman is quoted as saying that Baker should not have voted for a package of taxes to increase funding for schools by about $400 million a year that included a seven-eighth percent increase in the sales tax and put 15 services under the sales tax.
[$400 million a year since 2003 is $2.8 billion taxpayers have paid in taxes since that vote on that one bill – while there has been no significant improvement in ACT Tests, nationally normed tests, remediation rates or the NAEP test – known as the national report card – and this is by no means the only increase in education funding. The spending on facilities (Act 90 that Baker also voted for) has also been over a billion dollars. $2.5 billion was the minimum amount recommended by the Committee overseeing funding for the facilities.]
Conservatives and Jim Holt agree with Boozman and Baker. Holt voted against this increase in taxes and against the Facilities bill.
"Boozman said his complaint is that Baker is telling people he won’t vote for tax increases, despite doing so in the Legislature."
"If Baker felt pressure from the state Supreme Court to raise taxes for schools, Boozman said, 'You can imagine the pressure under these swelling [national] deficits to raise taxes. As [former Arkansas football] Coach [Frank] Broyles used to say, past performance is indicative of future performance.'”
"Well said," Jim Holt and other conservatives agree.
"In recent weeks, Baker has also criticized Boozman for his use of the congressional earmark process, whereby congressmen can get projects funded in their districts. Some have pointed to earmarks as contributing to the deficit.
"Last week, Boozman called Baker 'very aggressive in use of earmarks' in the state Legislature."
"As co-chairman of the Joint Budget Committee in the Legislature, Baker has supported bills allowing senators to equally divvy up General Improvement Fund dollars for their preferred projects. Baker has said he’s dedicated his state General Improvement Fund dollars to the University of Central Arkansas, which he describes as a legitimate expenditure."
["In 2009, Baker helped steer $10 million from the General Improvement Fund for the Highway Commission to use for a planned interchange in Conway," according to the Democrat Gazette article. Baker lives in Conway.]
Conservatives and Jim Holt agree with Baker and Boozman's assessment of each other's spending. Jim Holt and conservatives are opposed to using earmarks for one's own career enhancement.
So why don't we vote for a real conservative with a record to prove it? We agree with Baker and Boozman in that neither of them should have voted for the government spending and earmarks. That is why we support former Senator Jim Holt. He actually did vote against every tax and spending during the six years he was in the legislature – even against his own pay raise – every time. And as Boozman is quoted as saying, " past performance is indicative of future performance." See voting records below.
Poll Indicates U.S. Senate Race Headed for HOLT/Boozman Run-Off
Holt's Press Release May 7, 2010
With just over a week left before the Arkansas primary elections, the eight man race for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate may well be coming down to a two-man race — John Boozman and Jim Holt.
The Stephens Media poll, released May 6th, shows no candidate winning the majority necessary to avoid a run-off election. (insert poll results) "We're pleased that we are second in the poll. We realize it is an uphill battle, but our supporters are fired up! We hope and pray the supporters of the other six candidates will rally behind us when we make the run-off. Once people see our voting record of less government control and spending, we'll win by a landslide! It's not even close"
Rasmussen reports that seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Congressman Boozman would fit in that category since he has been in Congress for the past nine years now.
While trailing Boozman, Holt polled six percentage points ahead of Gilbert Baker who has raised more money than all six of the other candidates combined (excluding Boozman). Holt leads the rest of the field by double-digits. If the poll results hold true, Boozman and Holt could very well meet in a run-off election on June 8. "If we can get in the run-off, we will have these next twelve days and three more weeks to get a comparison of Boozman's and my voting record out across the state”, Holt said.
Boozman voted for the deficit-exploding TARP bailout legislation and has become a Beltway fixture when it comes to voting to raise the federal debt ceiling. He also has been a strong proponent of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation that has undermined state and local control of school districts. "Blanche Lincoln is the incumbent Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas," Holt said. "But John Boozman is as much an incumbent as Blanche Lincoln. His voting record should be examined just as closely as Lincoln's."
Holt noted his gratitude for Boozman's service as the lone Republican representing Arkansas in those nine years. He added that Boozman has been a "shining light" on social issues. But, he said, people are just now discovering Boozman's record on fiscal issues and on increasing government control.
"I hate to be the one to point it out," Holt said, "but the Democrat opponent in the Senate race will point out again and again that our national debt rose from $5.7 trillion to $9.2 trillion from 2001 to 2008 -- when the Republican administration was in power. And John Boozman voted with the party 97% of the time. He will be painted as part of the problem – and not the solution." On the other hand, Jim Holt has a 100% conservative voting record on both social and fiscal issues.
"Unlike some of the other candidates, I consistently vote the actual Republican platform of smaller government and fewer taxes," Holt says. "My principle for voting has always been simple: If it empowers the government, I vote against it. If it empowers the individuals and encourages personal responsibility, I vote for it."
The evidence is in his voting record. Except for a minor beer tax, (which when brought back in two more sessions, Holt voted against it and tried to kill it) Holt voted against the increase in sales tax in Arkansas and every other tax when he was a state legislator for six years. He even voted against his own legislative pay raise -- every time.Many people have noted that Boozman may be the weakest GOP candidate against Blanche Lincoln, the likely Democrat winner of the primary.
Boozman is the only candidate of the eight who can't use the $700 billion bailout against Lincoln (or have it used against him if Halter wins the Democratic primary)
Boozman can't use the Washington insider aspect against Lincoln, but it can be used against him if Halter wins.
Boozman has been given very low scores by the Club for Growth because of his multiple earmarks, and the media has already hammered Boozman on the fact that he took more trips around the world at taxpayers' expense than any Democrat in the state.
Boozman is financed by the corporate world much like Lincoln.
But Jim Holt's campaign is grassroots all the way. Most of his work is done by volunteers. Jim Holt said, "I owe nothing to the corporate world, the lobbyists, or the establishment; I will be able to truly represent the people and their interests in Washington as I did in the Arkansas legislature. I think that is what people have been looking for and they will become more aware of it when the voting records become more public."
If we can get our voting record out to the people -- and I think we can -- we'll win this race for the U.S. Senate... in a landslide."
The voting records can be found at Record at www.jimholt2010.com. They were compiled independently by the Women's Action Group and we are thankful for their diligence to inform the public.
Yes, the Senate passed something it called an audit of the Federal Reserve today. No, they are not being honest about it. For background on the most important, and under-discussed, political issue in the United States today, click here (30 minute audio).
The real audit bill was defeated something like 62-37.
I know the 3rd district GOP Congressional race is being polled A LOT because I have gotten several calls on it. To date no one has released the data. That tells me that the race is still very open. If one of the three people perceived as "front runners" two months ago was taking off, we would have heard about it. Whichever candidate was doing well would tell us about it.
This race is either in a state of flux or no one is going anywhere. Someone please release some poll numbers and tell us what the trends are!
Long read with vulgar language, but it shows us what we are up against. Those who are profiting from our "looters economy" have convinced themselves that continuing the fraud is the only thing to do. Of course, the Wall Street defender in this conversation is incorrect as to his major point. The value of all stocks would not drop to zero were the rot rooted out. Some companies stocks would collapse- if they were the ones built on fraud. Wal-Mart would not collapse. Tyson Foods would not collapse. Murphy Oil would not collapse. These are real companies who own real assets that people need every day.
The fraudsters have convinced themselves, and congress it seems, that "the whole economy" would collapse if the fraud were exposed. My position is that an economy built on fraud has to collapse eventually. The sooner it happens the less deep the hole we have to dig out of. That part of the economy that is not based on fraud will have a chance to flourish.
Stephens Media contracted reputable pollster Mason-Dixon to conduct a poll on the GOP Senate nomination. The poll showed Boozman leading, and threatening a win without a run-off with 48%. Outsider Jim Holt surged to second place with 17%. The insider's former horse in the race (before Boozman was enticed in because I suspect that they realized Baker was not doing the job of stopping Holt) is Senator Gilbert Baker. He dropped to 11% in this poll. None of the other candidates, outsiders all, are even close to double digits.
In honor of their creativity, I am releasing my own "internal poll" on the race. It has a margin of error of about 18 inches, since that is the approximate width of my body trunk. Bear in mind this poll has every bit as much validity as the one the Baker campaign released, and even more credibility because I am not insulting your intelligence by asking you to buy it.
Anyway, in this poll it is Holt that has the 22% and Baker that has the 8%. Notice that the results of my little "internal poll" are much closer to the results of those from the reputable polling firm of Mason-Dixon than is the "internal poll" released by the Baker camp.
One big difference is that in my "internal poll" there is almost no support for Boozman, except for a small area in the exact center of my body. This fits what I know about Boozman being the candidate of the insiders. The rest of Boozman's support comes from uninformed voters. They don't know about his votes for the bailouts, the massive spending votes, and they don't know he has become a Washington Insider, the GOP's Blanche Lincoln. Since every single part of my body is highly informed, that section of Boozman's support did not show up in my "internal poll."
Baker's support was concentrated in my lower intestines, particularly among those who may develop into colon polyps. About 12-24 hours after a big meal, Baker's support increases because of what I get more full of.
Holt's support is very strong in my heart and my head, but the majority in my internal poll tell me that Washington is so messed up that I better not get wrapped up on the idea that any of these guys can or will "fix it."
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors" - Thomas Jefferson on the "Mainstream Media" of his day.
The most important issue in America today is one barely discussed by most candidates and largely avoided by the corporate media. That issue is the Federal Reserve system and the way in provides the Federal Government and banking insiders with a virtual "magic money machine". With the MMM, they can suck the value right out of your holdings and into theirs. They can magically cause every losing bet they make to show up on the people's ledger instead of theirs. They can and have used it to vastly expand the reach and power of the Federal government, and conceal the true cost of doing so.
If you or I had a Magic Money Machine, over time we would grow all powerful. The Feds and the banksters have a Magic Money Machine, and its called the Federal Reserve System. Over time, they are growing all powerful. Right now nobody in Congress is even allowed to see what they do with this Magic Money Machine, much less restrain it, or God willing, unplug it. If the people could see what the Fed and the banksters were using the MMM for, they might demand it be unplugged. There is already powerful evidence to suggest they are using it to systematically loot the American people on behalf of not even an American elite, but a global elite. A real audit of the Federal Reserve would prove it, and that is probably why the elites are fighting such an audit tooth and nail.
This looting through some form of central bank has happened before in our history. The first time Thomas Jefferson put a stop to it early. The second time, it was a harsher struggle, but the American people raised up "Old Hickory" (Andrew Jackson) who finally won the battle against the Fed and banksters of his day. "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have speculated in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits among yourselves, when you lost, you charged it to the bank........you are a den of vipers and thieves, I intend to route you out, and by the grace of God, will route you out." - Andrew Jackson
Different generation, same scam. Now days the mechanisms by which this process of gambling, keeping what you win and charging to the public what you lose, is called by names like the Fed Discount Window, Open Market Operations (which are ironically NOT done in the open) and TALF. TARP was actually the least odorous of the bundle of programs that were initiated or expanded by the original bailout legislation. That's one reason why bailout voting politicians keep trying to say "TARP" rather than the broader term "bailouts" which more accurately describes the totality of what is going on.
In 1913 the banksters got their hands on a MMM for the third time when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. They immediately flooded the market with credit and brought us the Roaring Twenties. That of course precipitated the Great Depression. They thought the problem was that the dollar was connected to a fixed standard of value- 1/20th of an ounce of gold. The fact that people could redeem their dollars for gold was a limit on how many dollars their MMM could create out of thin air to expand government and steal wealth.
Their "solution?" FDR made it illegal for Americans to own gold. He gave them a fixed exchange rate for the gold he confiscated, and then immediately devalued the dollar. That meant that the gold he just took was worth almost twice as many dollars as he gave us for them. Like our recent bailouts, it was a massive transfer of wealth to the government and their friends. More importantly, individual Americans lost their power to call the federal government to account.
When dollars were exchangeable for a fixed amount of gold, any citizen who thought that the fed was creating more dollars than it could back could simply hand in their dollars and force the Fed to cover in gold. Odds were, the feds were "leveraging", that is they were creating more dollars than they had gold to back it up with. When enough individuals called them on the fraud by exchanging dollars for gold, the feds had to stop their expansion of government because they had to stop their expansion of dollars that funded it. After FDR, the power of the individual citizen to call government to account for its expansionism was destroyed.
After that, the fed was restrained only by the fact that foreigners still retained a right that American citizens no longer possessed- the right to make the federal government of the United States exchange dollars for gold at a fixed exchange rate. To a lessor extent other governments were trying to do the same thing with their currencies, so no one called us on it for a while. Around 1970, France finally called us on it. They shipped in crates of dollars and asked for the stored value (the gold) that we said backed those dollars. Nixon responded by severing the last link between the dollar and gold.
Starting in the seventies then, the Fed could flood the earth with dollars backed by nothing more than the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. In 1969, gold sold in the open market for $35 an ounce. In terms of gold, the dollar has therefore lost 97% of its buying power in the 50 years since the Feds were cut free from the final cord of gold-standard restraint. Freed of market restraints, the magic money machine was even more empowered to suck out the wealth of this nation's people at light speed, and grow government to vast and incomprehensible size.
Dollars ever since have been backed wholly by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government." And what did that mean? What did the global banking elites have "faith" that the U.S. government would do? The answer is that the U.S. government would tax and plunder the wealth of the citizens of this country sufficiently to cover however many pieces of fiat currency that they would create. Faith that the U.S. government would tax as oppressively as it needed to so that some banker in Zurich or Dubai would get value when they called those notes (your dollars actually say that they are federal reserve "notes").
Currency backed by a commodity (or even made of a commodity such as the gold or silver specified by our constitution) represents value that has already been obtained. It is not a promise to plunder your citizens in the future to make it good, it's already good because it represents a claim on an existing asset. With a fiat currency which is created by debt, like the dollar we have now, the asset backing the currency is you. It the future labor of the citizens. The government is promising to extract the wealth to cover its debt later. This permits the explosion of government spending and power on a scale impossible to do when the government must first build value into a currency before they can issue it.
The federal government, including most of the names you know in both DC-based parties, will never willingly give up this power. Even if some of them understood the issue and wanted out, the financial backers of both parties' machinery would not permit it, because they are some of the man keyholders to the MMM. The allure of having a piece of a MMM is simply too great. And if the Fed got a real and full audit with the results widely known, the right-thinking people of this country would find themselves another Jefferson or Jackson to unplug their monsterous machine. To turn it off before it makes penniless slaves of the entirety of what used to be the middle and working classes of this nation.
That's why they are so desperate to avoid a real audit. Global banksters so venal as to suck the wealth out of America's once strong middle and working classes will not hesitate to direct its hirelings to lie to them. Pressure for a real audit is building. It passed the house overwhelmingly thanks to the tireless work of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. This was despite numerous attempts by establishment players such as the contemptible deviant from Massachusetts Barney Frank to stop the bill. In Frank's case, after pretending he was for it, at the last minute he attempted a double-cross of Paul and Grayson. Too many people were watching, and his efforts to substitute the original language with a sham-audit failed.
I suspect that what he found was that too many citizens had been communicating with too many senators to kill the bill outright. What they resorted to instead was trickery and deceit. Paul and Grayson had been depending on independent Senator Bernie Sanders to carry the bill in the Senate. At the last minute, Sanders substituted language in the bill that not only made the audit a one-time audit, but it excluded from the audit the main things that the Fed uses to operate the MMM. The operations of the Fed Discount Window would be excluded from the audit under the Sander's changes. So would "Open Market Committee" meetings- ironically they would continue to be held in secrecy. Likewise, the American people and their representatives would continue to be completely ignorant of certain transactions with foreign banks. We could bail out Greece (by giving money to the banksters who lent it to them) and never even know it!
The Mainstream Media now hails Obama as someone who is "for" an audit of the Federal Reserve. What they don't tell you is what I have told you. That this audit bill is a sham. It pretends the problem with the Fed is limited to a time window right around the bailouts rather than something that is inherent in having a secretly operated MMM. In addition, it excludes the areas where most of the real damage is done.
Ron Paul, the real go-to guy on this issue, described the situation as one in which "Bernie Sanders sold us out." You can listen to his description of the chicanery below.
This is the most important issue in politics, because it effects every other issue. Yet most candidates are not talking about it. Most activists are not pushing it. That's a mistake that chops off and throws in the wastebasket the huge part of our American Heritage that is our struggle against Central Banking. Don't count on any broadcast media to tell you the truth about it, whether they purport to be from the left or the right. You can't even trust many politicians who attempt to jump in front of the bandwagon on it, as Frank and Sanders demonstrate. Patriots, there are many forces that want to distract you. If you want your children to grow up free instead of as debt slaves, you can't take the bait. This historical battle against central banks is the root of the battle against expansionist government. The Republic needs all patriots to be informed and engaged on this seminal issue.
This episode of POW Radio: Mark breaks out the crystal ball and makes predictions about what will happen near-term in the US Senate Race, in particular the GOP side. Also, since some of Mark's liberal friends get tired of him quoting the Founding Fathers so often (dead white Christian men) Mark decides to quote a Jewish man, a female atheist, and an oriental philosopher. Sadly, it does not seem to make them any happier.
This time its for housing developmentally disabled individuals in an institutional setting when the Americans with Disability Act mandates a community setting whenever possible. Story from ArkTimes.
Reminds me of the struggle to get a fair hearing for HB1665, Mark Martin's bill to help children with Autism and Cerebral Palsy who were not right for the institutional environment of the school. The state DOE said anything they had to say, true or not, to scare the legislators on the education committee from voting for it. Different disability, same attitude- the state institutions are a "one size fits all"- in the mind of the government.
KFSM is now reporting on the story. Video here. The Womack campaign seems snake bit. Womack apologized to other candidates over the matter, which seems a stand-up thing to do- but he used city computers to send the email. Some consider that a violation of the political practices pledge against using public resources for campaign purposes. To me, that is too nit-picky. He was not going to win any votes from the other candidates, he was not campaigning per se. I don't see that the spirit of the pledge was violated by what was meant to be an attempt to make good. Still, these miscues are a drag on the campaign at a most unwelcome time.
Ron Paul's son Rand Paul is leading in the polls for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
Is the Christian right finally parting ways with the neocons? Dr. James Dobson endorsed Trey Grayson in the Kentucky senate race. After one week he pulled that endorsement and backed Grayson's rival, Dr. Rand Paul. Paul is the son of U.S. Congressman Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.
Dobson explains his switch like this, "I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent. " Ouch.
Endless military occupation of half the planet is not much of a Christian value. The neocons have conned Christian Conservatives for years now. The RR has gotten about NONE of their agenda passed while getting the blame for all the blunders of the neocons because they helped elect them.
Maybe its time the RR got out of an abusive relationship....
On the other side, maybe its time for Democratic voters who think their party stands up for the little guy needs to take a good hard look. They would see Rahm Emmanuel working to kill the bill to audit the Federal reserve. Here is video of Obama talking about how "transparency will be the touchstone" of his administration. They created a trillion dollars and handed it out to their friends, including overseas banks, and won't let Congress see any of it! And Obama is working against them seeing any of it!
I was driving up 71 today and saw a guy in a truck putting up signs in vacant fields and taking other signs down today. I followed him for a little while and after several stops I took a picture, because I thought you guys might be interested in what was going on. I do not care to get in the middle of this, I just thought as a citizen it was my duty to let you know.There is a picture of his license plate, but that big trailer is pretty easy to spot.
Stay Conservative Mac
*************************** Facebook chatter notes that the rig in question is often parked outside the HQ of Mayor Steve Womack's Congressional Campaign HQ. The campaign says that it is a misunderstanding. Our line is open for more details....
Repeated Violence at Political Rallies, but its not the Tea Parties
Above is a video from Arizona last month. It shows Hispanics rioting and throwing projectiles at a counter-protester during their demonstration against the new law in Arizona. About a dozen police were escorting this old white man away from the scene, and he looked very willing to accept their protection. Even the heavy police presence did not deter the mob from hurling curses, and projectiles, at the lone retreating counter demonstrator. Who knows what they would have done to him had the cops not been there?
This is just the latest two examples of violence at political rallies- and it does not come from the Tea Party groups but rather their political opposites. When there is violence at a Tea Party group, it winds up being some of their political opponents like SEIU thugs administering a beat-down to peaceful protesters such as the African-American gentleman who was assaulted for handing out tracks unfriendly to Obama-care.
This stuff is happening across the country on multiple occasions, yet all the corporate media wants to talk about is the alleged threat of violence from the Tea Parties. Reality doesn't fit the template that they are attempting to impose on the data. Beware the government-media complex. Now there is a report that President* Obama's administration has got our own Army conducting exercises which make the Tea Party folks the target. If true it is an outrageous abuse of the military, which by tradition is to abstain from police actions on our own citizens.