Friday, September 30, 2011

Wanted: Straight Answers on Highway Debt Plan

On November the 8th we will be asked to go to the polls and vote to give the Highway Commission authority to issue $575 million dollars of additional public debt.  I am very concerned at the lack of straight answers people have been getting, including reporters, from the people who are behind this debt plan.
We have Highway Department Spokesman Randy Ort in the Democrat-Gazette yesterday (Sept. 29th) telling reporter Sarah Wire “The current interstate highway system was built in the 1950s, not as the result of any current bonds.”
I guess someone ought to tell that to the Chairman of the State Highway Commission.  Madison Murphy is quoted in the Sept. 1st edition of the Stuttgart Daily Leader as saying ““The 1999 program modernized over 350 miles of Arkansas interstates,” Madison Murphy, the Arkansas Highway Commission and Move Arkansas Forward chairman, said. “That’s the good news. The other news is that Arkansas now has over 650 miles of interstates. “
Mr. Murphy seems to be under the impression that we have added interstate miles since that first bond issue in 1999.    At first read I thought he meant they had added hundreds of miles, but that can’t be right can it?   Still, despite Mr. Ort's statement about our current system being built in the 1950's, we have added plenty of miles to the Interstate system since then.  I distinctly remember I-540 from Ft. Smith to Rogers being built in the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s.   Anybody else out there remember it that way? 
Wikkipedia seems to have it wrong too, if Mr. Ort has it right.  Here is their article about future I-555 which it says is currently under construction as U.S. Highway 63.  And that’s just one example.
But he goes on: “I’m a little confused by their argument,” Ort said. “We’re dealing with a system that was laid out at a national level so I’m not quite sure how we’ve overbuilt the system.”
Well, yes he does seem confused, and it’s confusing me listening to him.  Is he claiming that the federal government builds highways across states without the cooperation and co-funding of the states?  My understanding is that states normally have to pony up some matching funds to get the feds to build a highway.   They also build up smaller highways that “graduate” to become interstates once they get to certain specifications (as with Hwy 63/I-555). 
Then there is the letter from Craig Douglass of Douglass Communications.  He has been hired by the same “Move Arkansas Forward” that, like the Highway Commission itself, is chaired by Madison Murphy.  His job is to sell the idea of approving the debt issue to the voters.    His letter to Washington County Tea Party Chairman Jeff Oland reads in part:
“No new Interstate highways will be built with this program.  It will only modernize approximately 300 miles of existing interstates.  It is, in fact, an accelerated maintenance and rehabilitation program designed to maximize the efficiency of modernizing Interstates sooner rather than later.  The program will only fix what we currently have.”

What Mr. Douglass is telling the Tea Party does not match what Arkansas County Judge Sonny Cox is telling people about the debt issue. Here is another excerpt from the Daily Leader: “ Arkansas County Judge Glenn “Sonny” Cox said, if the measure is approved, the state would eventually make the stretch a four-lane highway all the way through. He said county officials would then work on getting U.S. Hwy. 165 made into a four-lane highway. It’s a possibility that Stuttgart’s new overpass and bypass made into a reality.

Add to that the words of Arkansas Roads Council Official, John Bolin, who seems to indicate that the bond issue has not just a maintenance component, but a construction component as well….
Bolin, who resigned as executive director on Wednesday to run for state Senate in District 26, said the bond issue would have two phases with construction starting within six years.”
So on the one hand Mr. Douglass is out there telling the Tea Party and the media that this debt will only “fix what we currently have” while at the same time other officials are telling voters that if they approve the debt they can get all kinds of new road additions.
Did two separate reporters that badly misquote three separate highway officials?   I am looking for coherent explanations that add up from our state highway officials and the representatives of Move Arkansas Forward before we hand them over half a billion dollars. I think the voters of this state are looking for some straight answers from these people.  So far, we haven’t gotten them.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Rolling Back the Terrible Year in American History

I consider 1913 to be the "terrible year" for the American Republic.   That year saw the introduction of the income tax in a form that would stick.  It was also the year we got the Federal Reserve System that has siphoned off 96% of the value of the dollar since 1913.  That siphoned-off value went to the government as a hidden tax and into the pockets of the big banks which comprise the fed.

Consider that only four pennies in 1913 could purchase what requires a dollar to buy today.     Indeed, a silver dime from 1963 is worth almost three dollars today.  That's just how fast our currency has been drained of value.  That value went somewhere.   That somewhere was the government, which grew in size and scope even as the currency it issued contracted in worth.  Also benefiting were the large banks which control the issue of currency.   Over the last one hundred years, those are the parties that gained big from the dollar's fall.

1913 also brought us the 17th amendment, which states that United States Senators are to be chosen by direct election of the people.  Prior to that time, they had been selected by the largest house of the legislatures of the states.  In Arkansas, that would mean that the 100 state representatives would choose our U.S. Senators should the 17th amendment be repealed.

Critics of the amendment prophetically warned that it would tip the balance of power between the state governments and the federal government far more toward the federal government.  All three measures re-enforced federal power.   The federal government has grown so explosively since 1913 that the system of governance the Founders originally established is scarcely recognizable.  It could not have done so without the income tax, the federal reserve, and the 17th amendment.

All three measures discussed here set the stage for this explosive growth.   The federal income tax made it the federal government's business as to how much money every citizen made.   It gave them the power to use the tax code to redistribute wealth and grant special favors to the well-connected.    The Federal Reserve System, once the dollar was finally severed from the gold standard, gave them the power to enact a hidden tax called inflation.   It also allowed governments to borrow like mad at the expense of savers while concealing (for a time) the true cost.   It allowed well-connected financial interests to manipulate booms and busts in the economy and, for the select few who knew which was coming ahead of time, profit both ways.

Of course, the 17th amendment did have the effect that it's critics predicted.   The states dwindled in influence and the federal government gathered more and more power to itself.   Without the Senators being beholden to the state legislatures, there was no one to watch out for the interests of the states in the federal power structure.     While the federal government has sometimes used this new power over the states for good, in the long run centralized power is never good for the cause of liberty.   Washington now increasingly forces "one size fits all" solutions on areas of life that were once left up to each state individually.   If some state discovered a better way, others could copy it.   If some citizens did not like the way a state did something, they could easily move to one which did things more to their liking.   But where do you go when all the decisions are made in one city?

I favor the repeal of the federal individual income tax, and the disbanding of the Federal Reserve System.  Returning those two policies to the original American condition will help reign in Washington in more ways than I can describe here.   Yet I can't support repealing the 17th amendment at this time.

Let me explain the apparent inconsistency.   State legislatures can no longer be counted on to defend the rights of the states (and therefore the people in those states) against unjust federal power.   Both major political parties are now thoroughly creatures of the D.C. beltway.   If ambitious young state representatives want to move up in our current system they almost have to please the party hierarchy.   That hierarchy runs straight back to D.C.   The power of political parties has been centralized in D.C. just like government power has been.   The federal government now has lots of high paying easy-money jobs to offer through party patronage to state legislators who sell out and vote against the interests of the states and for the interests of the federal government.   At this point, the people themselves are more to be trusted than the legislature.

Consider our own state representatives.   Most of the Democrats are so sold out that I don't even feel the need to document it.  But even the Republicans feel establishment pressure.  For example, many of the state's GOP representatives did not try to pick a senator, but they did try to pick the GOP Presidential nominee.   Sadly, they tried to pawn Texas Governor Rick Perry on unsuspecting Republican voters in the state.   Oh, some of them may have been fooled themselves, but you just don't do something like that unless you know enough to avoid being made a fool of.   Why did they do it?  It surely was not a constituent service.   The people of this state were not begging them to pick a Presidential candidate for them.  I suspect they were asked to by someone in the GOP hierarchy.

End the fed.   End the individual income tax.  But don't repeal the 17th until, somehow, some way, political power in the form of the two party system is transformed into something more grass-roots and decentralized.

Friday, September 23, 2011

A Gimmick System

Here is what the communications director of the Arkansas Republican Party said about Senator Mark Pryor's "Jobs Day" measure...
“Senator Pryor’s ‘Jobs Day’ is an insulting gimmick to Arkansans dealing with the highest unemployment rate in nearly a generation,” said Republican Party of Arkansas Communications Director Katherine Vasilos. “Instead of proposing - or voting on - real solutions for private sector job growth, Sen. Pryor is offering nothing more than a distraction to Arkansans.
She is 100% correct about that.  Too bad for her Republican Senator John Boozman was an original co-sponsor of the gimmick.

We have a captured two-party system that has resulted in a broken political system in this country.   The apparatchiks who work their way up in that system either can not or will not make the serious changes necessary to prevent economic collapse.   American families may go hungry because this system will not reform itself.   We are stuck on a loop and the players don't even know what do to except parrot the other sides' gimmicks.

Face Time Vs. Poll Numbers in FAUX News Debate

Faux News.  They distort, I deride.

I have often made the case here to FOX NEWS is no friend to pro-American limited-government conservatives.  Rather, they are both statist and globalist.  Their function in the drive to globalism is to pose as your friend so that the might assume the role of dictating who the "acceptable" candidates are for those on the right.  

Their plans have been going swimmingly.  Americans, especially conservative ones, have been hoodwinked into more debt for an endless global warfare state that makes us less safe and creates more enemies for us with every village it bombs in our name.   Every day they inch closer to attaining their goals, which include the elimination of the middle class and their troublesome ideas about limitations on the actions of the rich and powerful.   Only one serious obstacle remains.  That thin line consists of just seven letters.  R O N P A U L.   

This small, genteel, elderly man understands what is going on behind the shell game, beyond the hot buttons.  While 90% of Americans are following the misdirecting hand motions of the media magicians, Ron Paul has spent the last 20 years following the money.

They have tried every dirty trick imaginable short of actual assassination to discredit him.  In spite of their efforts, he not only continues to win people over to his message, but in the process people are starting to notice the media's role in this mess.    Their problem is how to stop Paul without being so blatant about it that they lose  all credibility with the population.

Jon Stewart made comedy gold out of the media's early efforts to make this a three person race between Romney, Perry and Bachman.   The latest polls mostly show that Paul is ahead of Bachman.  So now the media tries to make it a two man race between Romney and Perry.   See how that works?  When he's fourth, talk about the top three.  When he is third, talk about the top two.   When he was second in the Iowa straw poll, they talked about 1st and 3rd.   They deserve to be ridiculed.

Perry is going to collapse.  He is going to be the Fred Thompson of this election cycle, much to the chagrin of the wanna-be establishment Republicans who are trying to push him.   Team Paul knows enough about Perry to know this is coming and are at work positioning Paul as the constitutional alternative to Romney.

Prior to the debate, Fox and Google boasted that they had a system in place that would make it more fair and not marginalize everyone except the media anointed front runners.   The actual results of the debate shows how empty those boasts were.   Ron Paul got far less speaking minutes than John Huntsman.   He got less minutes than anyone, save Gary Johnson.   Never heard of Johnson?   Most people haven't.  Yet Ron Paul, #3 in the polls among Republican voters and in a statistical dead heat with Obama among all Americans got only twenty-three more seconds of speaking time than Johnson!

Romney and Perry each got about triple the speaking time Paul got.  Even candidates with negligible support got significantly more time and attention than Paul.   They did not ask him about foreign policy, even though this is where his views differ from most of the field.   Instead, they let Johnny-come-lately-Huntsman make the case Paul has been making for years to loud applause.    In the previous debate, they asked a question about the Federal Reserve to the other candidates, but skipped Paul, who authored a best-selling book called "End the Fed."   Prior to that, they skipped Paul in a question about health care even though he is a physician.    

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Rep. Barnett to be Honored by Those He Serves- The State Highway Commission

State Rep. Johnathan Barnett (R) Siloam Springs, will be honored by the people that he serves so tirelessly- the State Highway Commission.   They have voted to name a portion of Highway 412 after Barnett.  Barnett says he was unaware of their plans.

The residents of his district who Barnett is technically supposed to be representing may have a different view.  Talk Business' report on the story mentions that Barnett may get a rare challenger in the Republican primary.  When the panel of Activists assembled by Arkansas Watch ranked Barnett #8 on the list of "Ten Worst Legislators in the State of Arkansas" here is part of what we said.....
It seems like this former member of the highway commission spent as much energy representing the commission as he did his district. It is OK to specialize in transportation, but Barnett’s time on the commission seems to have narrowed his imagination on solving transportation problems rather than giving him a strong foundation for improved solutions. Asking for a tax increase for your favorite commission during the Great Recession does not qualify as creative problem solving, especially on something that is supposed to be his strength!
Those words were true at the time they were posted, but sometimes events like this occur to highlight just how true.

John Vines' Epic Fail on Gold and Silver Sales

Rep. John T. Vines of Hot Springs wrote a bill which he thought would ban the practice of "unregulated" gold and silver sales by and to these outfits that come through towns, by up as much gold as possible, and then move on. They are often called "road shows."  He wanted to force people to trade their silver and gold at pawn shops, or licensed gold and silver shops where they had to record information about their customers and report it to the government.  These travelling show would not be much of a threat if the pawn shops paid top dollar for gold and silver.  From here it looks like pawn shop interests are trying to regulate their competition out of business.

Well, it turns out the language of the bill does not do what Vines intended.   As long as the travelling gold and silver shows have a fixed address somewhere, even out of state, the show can go on!

As I read the bill, the language makes it illegal for one person in Arkansas to sell gold or silver to another without first registering as an "offical dealer" and keeping records of who you are selling it to.   If I am short of cash one week and my buddy Josh buys 10 ounces of silver off me for $400 and a month later I buy it back for $400 or spot (whichever is higher) then we both broke Rep. Vines' Epic Fail "Law."

Vines did not even make our 10 Worst Legislators list. I can't remember if I put him on it but so low that he did not make the final list because others did not give him enough votes, or whether their were just too many bad ones to make room for him. Just like their are more than 10 good legislators and some got left off that list, there are some poor ones that were left off the bottom ten list.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Fingerprints of the Deluge

Several interesting articles from Science Daily.   They are completely pro-evolution.  So much so that perhaps they don't catch it when the information in their articles is very supportive of creationist ideas once you take the evolutionary blinders off.    This article went even further.   It reported on key findings that were what one would expect to find if the Biblical account of a world-wide deluge with a small sample of land animal and human survivors were true.  The key paragraph....

"It also implies that the loss of species diversity that occurred during the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the last Ice Age may not have been as extensive as previously thought.
In contrast, ancient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe," Professor Cooper says.
Translated, it is saying that many fossils that were assigned to different species based on bones are now determined to be the same species based on DNA analysis.   A species can morph over a wider range of forms than thought, but still be the same species.   They once thought that after the end of the last Ice Age (they estimate it ended a bare 12,000 years ago) that the world lost a huge chunk of its large animal species.   Now they say a more accurate picture is that while some species did die out, what is more likely is that "species" is a broader concept than the bone-pickers have thought.  What was really lost was an "extreme" amount of genetic diversity within a species.   Modern species contain only a fraction of the genetic diversity of those same species prior to the end of the last Ice Age.   

What could explain such a finding?   How about a world-wide cataclysm such as the Deluge described in Scripture in which only a handful of beasts from each "kind" are preserved?   Post Deluge, the "kinds" spread out into a number of classified species, which genetically turn out to still be the same species- all of which were just a subset of the "super species" which existed prior to the cataclysm. But then they put up another article the same day which casts doubt on previous results from fossil DNA.   Here is the money quote from that article...
Cataloging the diversity of life on Earth is challenging enough, but when scientists attempt to draw a phylogeny -- the branching family tree of a group of species over their evolutionary history -- the challenge goes from merely difficult to potentially impossible. The fossil record is the only direct evidence scientists have about the history of species diversity, but it can be full of holes or totally nonexistent, depending on the type of organisms. The only hope in such cases is to infer historical diversity from modern DNA sequences, but such techniques have a fatal flaw: the results they provide are demonstrably incorrect.
Does that sound like they have a high degree of confidence in the evidence for the macro-evolutionary hypothesis to you?  Me neither.   Belief in evolution is an article of faith for which they are searching for confirming evidence (whilst they insure the public that such evidence is already in hand).  

Oh, they claim that they have found a technique to correctly measure one aspect of DNA paleontology - species diversity. That is what the piece is about.   They claim past methods over-estimated ancient diversity (which according to the previous article I cited, was STILL a more conservative estimate of species diversity than that generated by using bones alone because the same species can display a wide variety of fossil traits).   But a close look at the article shows that even their new ballyhooed technique was only confirmed at tracing whale diversity over the past 35 million years.   But this was not a story of whales coming into being from something else.  At that time, whales were whales, and while we may have lost some diversity in the group, it says nothing about the question of whether or not whales evolved from some land dwelling ancestor.  Read here for more insight into the absurdity of the major claim behind whale diversification.

A few days ago they had an article touting "epigenetic" changes over DNA mutation as a possible source to power evolution.      This is because the more they learn about DNA, the more they realize natural mutations in DNA can not be responsible for the diversity of life on earth.    The more they understood about DNA, the less probable it was that DNA could have been the mechanism by which evolution occurred.  But just as the door is closing, they discover another poorly-understood process that shapes living things.   So now they float the idea that this new process must be the mechanism behind evolution.  

Why? Because evolution must have happened!  For years the evos insisted that DNA changes were the mechanism by which it occurred.  And for years doubters of the theory pointed out to them that all known natural processes were woefully inadequate for the task.  Evos responded by calling us all a bunch of ignorant Bible-thumpers.  Now they are shifting their hopes on this new, poorly understood process.  And if you doubt the current incarnation of their oft-changing explanation as to how it might have happened then you too must be an ignorant Bible-thumper.   Just accept that it happened, they will tell you how later, maybe.

UPDATE: Their straw did not support them long.  New study which is based on some of the same research says epigenetic changes are not lasting and probably have little long term effect on evolution.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Ernie P Resigns as Lottery Director

No wonder Shane Broadway was willing to turn down the education job.  Just kidding.  I don't want to start any rumours here.   Arktimes and others report Ernie P. will leave his position Oct. 7th.

He took quite a few barbs during his tenure.   I suggest to you that the problem was not and is not Ernie P, it's that the government should never be its own regulator of a monopoly business.   Especially one that does not generate real wealth.   How can it end well?    Someone please make an elegant post about how great all that scholarship money has been for the state.   I feel like destroying something beautiful.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

The Same Kind of Dishonest

Arkansans are familiar with former President and Governor Bill Clinton.   And the Arkansans who have watched him closely know that Clinton is a dishonest man, but he was so good at it that you had to be watching very closely to catch him.   He counted on most people not watching that closely.  He also had an ability to radiate so much synthetic moral indignation at the suggestion that he had anything but the best of intentions that casual observers would shrug off what they thought was contradictory evidence.   In the face of such persuasive protests from the man, the average person would figure that they must have just misunderstood what really went down.  In the case of Bill Clinton this resulted in an incensed minority that had his number, and a clueless majority that wondered why a few people were such "Clinton Haters."

After going through the facts on a couple of key issues, I realized something.  Texas Gov. Rick Perry lies like Bill Clinton.   He is not simply a man that I disagree with on policy.  He is a dishonest man.   I am prepared to show you what I mean, but to do so, you will have to be of the minority of our citizens who is willing to sift through the evidence.  Just as important, you will have to believe what you see even in the face of a person who has copied to a "T" the indignant outrage routine that most people accept on an emotional level as evidence that it all must be some sort of misunderstanding.  But it's not a misunderstanding, but rather an attempt to create misunderstanding by a man of low moral character.

First issue: the bailouts for the Banksters.   Rick Perry now denies that he ever supported the bailout, but the facts show otherwise.  Please review the evidence at the link.  As head of the Republican Governor's Association he co-signed a letter with the leader of the Democratic Governor's Association urging Congress to pass the "economic stimulus" package before them.   He did not call it a bailout of course, none of them did.  But there was no other such bill before Congress at the time that they could have been referring to in that letter.  The establishment needed bipartisan cover for them to pass something that over 90% of the voters were against.    Perry was so crafty, so Clintonesque, that the same day he released the letter his office released a covering statement seeming to be against some of the policies in the very same bill that he just got through asking Congress to pass!

But of course the real story about Perry right now is over the triple-shot Gardasil injections for fifth grade girls which he attempted to mandate by executive order.   To understand why this issue is so serious, first we need some background.  Gardasil is a live-virus vaccine from Merck that protects against some but not all strains of HPV that can cause cancer.  HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.  For every such vaccine, a small percentage of recipients will experience an adverse reaction.  For example, thousands of such adverse reactions have been tied to Gardasil, including paralysis and even death.  Some of these may be because the Gardasil vaccine has been found to be highly contaminated.  

First of all, I am against the government mandating that my children get live-virus injections even if they are convinced that it might save my child's life.  I am the parent and I strongly reserve the right to be the one to make the decision as to whether or not the risk to my child of taking a medication is higher than the risk of not taking it.  This is nowhere more true than with a vaccine for 11 year old girls against a virus that is sexually transmitted.  Remember, all such vaccines have a small chance of an adverse reaction.   If my daughter lives a chaste lifestyle and marries someone who does the same, then taking the vaccine poses a greater health risk than not taking it.    I want to be the one to evaluate that risk for my children, not have the government decide it for us.

That should take care of Perry's claims that he only did it to "save lives."  If implemented, his edict may well have cost the life of some girl due to an adverse reaction to a vaccine that she did not need.  But of course, Perry told us at the Tea Party Debate that there was an "opt-out" clause in his executive order.   Read here about the hoops that parents had to jump through every two years if they wanted to "opt-out" of the vaccination.  Notice that if your timing was wrong, your child would have had to leave school until the bureaucrats of Texas decided to approve your paperwork.   The so-called "opt-out" clause was close to a farce.

Perry also said at the Tea Party debate that he realized afterward that he was wrong about the way he went about it and that he should have gone to the legislature.    But his recollection of his own response to the legislative rebuke was a fiction.  Instead, he acted much as Bill Clinton would have in a similar situation.  Michelle Malkin recounts his true reaction....

Not only did Perry defend going above the heads of elected state legislators, but his office also falsely claimed the legislature had no right to repeal the executive order. “The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it,” Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody told The Washington Post in February 2007.

When both the House and Senate repealed the law six weeks later, Perry did not — as he now claims — listen humbly or “agree with their decision.”

Human shield demagoguery. In response to the legislature’s rebuke,the infuriated governor attacked those who supported repeal as “shameful” spreaders of “misinformation” who were putting “women’s lives” at risk. Borrowing a tried-and-true Alinskyite page from the progressive left, Perry surrounded himself with female cervical cancer victims and deflected criticism of his imperial tactics with emotional anecdotes.
He then lionized himself and the minority of politicians who voted against repeal of his Gardasil order. “They will never have to think twice about whether they did the right thing. No lost lives will occupy the confines of their conscience, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.” Perry, of course, has now put his own ghastly Gardasil order on that same altar — but with no apology to all those he demonized and exploited along the way.

When Congresswoman Michelle Bachman pointed out that the vaccine distributor Merck was a Perry Contributor, Perry said they only gave him about $5,000.   The truth documented here shows it was much more than that.   In addition, Perry's former staffer now has a key role at a drug company "Super-PAC" that is very likely to be in a position to send millions of dollars his way.

UPDATE: During the Florida debate Perry looked as the camera and said "I was a 31 year old cervical cancer victim."   The facts now show that he did not meet her until after he issued the executive order.

The bottom line is that based on what I know to be true, I cannot in good conscience vote for Rick Perry.  When I listen to the guy, I like what he says.  When I look at the facts later and compare them to his words, I become furious.   That's just the way I felt for many years about Bill Clinton.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Patently Ridiculous

The Resident just signed the so-called "Patent Reform Bill", thus initiating a major change on the one part of the federal government that is 1) Constitutional 2) Self-funding and 3) working well.  Like most "bi-partisan" ideas, the bill was bad for middle america and good for global corporations.

As is all too often the case, you can't get the real story from reading the corporate-state controlled media reports on the issue.   Never mind, I will sum it up for you.   The bill changes us from a "first to invent" country to a "first to file" country- thus harmonizing us with "global standards."  Hate it yet?   There is more.  Big corporations have the money to do multiple filings in the hopes that one of them will work out.  Small inventors don't.   They don't have legal departments to do paperwork for them, they focus on actual inventing.   The big boys as usual are tilting the playing field to their advantage by changing rules that have served this nation well.

There is no way this will solve the "problem" of a backlog of applications.  Instead, it will encourage multiple early applications before an idea has been thoroughly worked out.   Not that having too much business is a problem anyway, except in government land.   The patent office makes money processing patent applications.  They should expand.  It's not a "problem" in the usual sense.

Conspiracy Facts

Being sucked in?  Despite the Resident's assurance that there would be no U.S. "boots on the ground" in Libya, the British press blandly reports that CIA agents are in Libya right now hunting down Gaddaffi and his minions. Maybe they are not wearing boots?

Also, recommended reading from Doug Wead: "the conspiracy against Ron Paul."   The Ron Paul part is interesting enough, but what fascinated me most was his information on the well documented and successful plot against Upton Sinclair that involved both dominant political parties and FDR.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Senate Leader Harry Reid Touts Bike Paths As Transportation To Work

September 15, 2011
Harry Reid: "Well, for most Americans, [bike paths] are absolutely important. It's good for purposes of allowing people to travel, um, without burning all the fossil fuel on the highways. I got up this morning really early, and went out and did my exercise. I'm not exaggerating--scores!--at least 30 or 40 bikes--so scores may be a slight exaggeration--of people, not just for exercise, traveling to work. Backpacks on--they are going to work. That's what bike paths are all about!"

How much of Obama's Job Plan (new $450 billion Stimulus Bill) would be spent on mass transit and bikeways (or on highways connecting to mass transit and bikeways) if Oama could get it passed? In his earlier, failed 800 billion stimulus bill Obama set aside $100 billion (more than 10%) for energy grants to states and localities for global warming measures, and $17 billion for mass transit. In all our research we have found no money in the stimulus bill that did not promote Obama's and the liberal Democrat agenda. (See for the amount of energy and mass transit grants.)

In Obama's recent jobs speech he mentioned mass transit twice as part of his new plan. In his latest budget proposal Obama called for $53 billion for the next six years for high-speed rail. Three governors have already turned down billions for fast rail in their states because it would cost their state taxpayers so much - taxpayers would have subsidized each train trip with $125 in Wisconsin. Now Reid is touting bikeways as a means of travel to work. Cars emit too much pollution and are going to destroy our plant, according to liberals. Evidently liberals know their alternative fuels are not workable so they are planning another route - walking & biking, rather than drilling for oil and using our own rich resources. See this link for the $53 billion for high-speed rail in Obama's proposed budget

Liberals are spending all this money and planning to deny people their preferred transportation method (cars) based on global warming as a fact. Scientists all over the world have disagreed. For a link to the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition opposing the concept of global warming, see this link:
Just this week another Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Stated His Disagreement with global warming.

See this link for excerpts from that article on the scientist.
or click on Thursday below.

Liberals Want Chidlren to Walk To School - To Save the Planet

Note how the children are being used to lobby for global warming measures under the Safe Routes to School banner and grants. The two front signs read: "Less Traffic" and "Less Pollution."

The MPO Director of Northeast Arkansas sent out an email advocating for school "Walk and Wheel" events - pushing the plan to have children to walk to school in order to reduce the use of cars - not just for this one event but every day. See this link for this picture and others.

These quotes are just more proof that the liberals don't intend to lower gasoline prices but to change our method of transportation to biking and walking in order to save the planet. What the School Walk and Wheel Events are all about in the words of those promoting them.

The following paragraph is from email from Director of MPO in Northeast Arkansas

Walk and wheel to school events are ways for schools and communities to build enthusiasm for health, fitness, traffic relief, environmental awareness and safety. Join the fun and hold a one-day walk and wheel to school event during the month of October. All Arkansas elementary and middle schools are invited to participate. Schools must register their event online at and receive access to event materials available for download, the chance to win prizes for their school, a weekly newsletter leading up to the event. The first 10 schools to register online will receive goodies from the Arkansas Safe Routes to School (SRTS). To register your event or download event ideas visit

Following are three other paragraphs from other sites that are participating in Walk to School Events:

The Safe Routes to School National Partnership is a network of more than 500 nonprofit organizations, government agencies, schools, and professionals working together to advance the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) movement in the United States. SRTS can provide a variety of important benefits to children and their communities, including increasing physical activity, reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and enhancing neighborhood safety.

"Safe Commutes, Green Communities
Safe Routes to Schools programs are designed to decrease traffic and pollution and increase the health of children and the community, Safe Routes to Schools promotes walking and biking to school, using education and incentives to show how much fun it can be! The program addresses parents’ safety concerns by educating children and the public, partnering with traffic law enforcement, and developing plans to create safer streets. Marin County pioneered the national Safe Routes to Schools program that has spread across the U.S. "

"Greenways to School Campaign – The Greenways to School campaign, funded by a $175,000 grant from the Marin Community Foundation's Climate Change initiative, features the new SchoolPool on-line trip sharing program and school and classroom challenges with cash incentives. Classes can earn from $50 – $100 and schools can earn from $500 to $1,500 by increasing their number of green trips to school. "

Do these climate change advocates not know that it is not safe for our children to walk to school these days? Remember the recent event where an 11 year old boy was kidnapped on his way home and cut to pieces and put in a freezer. Panels on CNN and Fox all agreed it is not safe for children to walk to and from events in our world today. Then why are they spending so much money and time on safe sidewalks and bikeways on so called Safe Routes to School?

Highway Commission Gives to "Recreational Trails"

While the Arkansas Highway Commission insists that it needs voters to approve a $575 million debt issue this November for badly needed road maintenance, records show it has been anything but frugal with existing road monies.  They just announced  $1.8 million dollars in awards to various applicants to be used for "recreational trails."  Recipients include entities that already get plenty of taxpayer dollars, such as the state park system, and public universities.  But even a private bank, Southern Bancorp Capital Partners, was awarded $100,000 of taxpayer money. 

The award raises several questions.  Why is the state highway department, funded by fuel taxes, diverting highway funds to recreational trails?   Not that there is anything wrong with recreational trails, but when people pay at the pump they expect their gasoline tax money to be spent on roads, not recreational trails.

And as long as we are asking questions of our betters, how is it that the Commission has so much money to hand out for non-highway goodies?    The whole political establishment in this state has been asking us lowly citizens to go to the polls November the 8th and vote to load $575 million in new debt on our backs because the Highway Commission just had to have all the road money for the next 15 years right now!   Don't we have badly needed highway maintenance?  Why are they taking money from gasoline taxes and giving it to private banks and state entities that already have their own taxpayer-funded budget for non-highway uses?

One reason our roads are so badly maintained now is that in 1999 we voted for a similar debt program.   Instead of letting them have the money as it comes in, we borrowed against that stream and gave it to them all at once.   And so they spent it all at once.   They spent a lot of it building new roads (almost doubling the miles in the interstate highway system).   They left too little for maintenance for the past ten years, especially since we had to subtract out bond commission fees and interest.   Now they want to do it again.  

The state's Highway Commission system is deeply flawed.  Given a large pile of money all at once, Commissioners have every incentive to get "their" road built before their term expires instead of maintaining existing roads.    The only way to stop them in the short term is to vote "NO" on November the 8th to their debt plan.

For more information on the problems with this plan, and the Highway Commission structure, see this link.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Pay to Play Perry?

In the recent GOP Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman insinuated that Texas Gov. Rick Perry pushed Gadrisil injections for 11 year old girls so hard because he was getting money from Merck.   Perry said he only got about $5,000 from them and that if she was suggesting he could be bought for that "he was offended."   I think I would be offended at the suggestion that I could be bought at all, but nevermind.

It turns out Perry's real benefits from Merck and subsidiares totals more like $400,000, most of it via the Republican Governor's Association which has funded Perry and in which he has played a prominent role.  No word on whether the Governor would be offended at the suggestion that he could be bought for that amount.

Like Arkansas, Texas has a fund of taxpayer money that the Governor can just give to businesses of his choice. Texas has two such funds.  In Perry's case, the businesses he choose to bless with taxpayer money often turned out to be businesses whose principals are large contributors to Rick Perry.   This graphic details one prominent example. 

Monday, September 12, 2011

Secure Arkansas Opposes Highway Debt Issue

“I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse.” -James Madison, the Father of the Constitution
“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt” – Thomas Jefferson

On November the 8th, Arkansans will be asked to go to the polls and give the Arkansas Highway Commission permission to add $575 million of additional debt unto our backs. While they have dropped many hints about what they “could” spend the money on, the bottom line is that the Highway Commission wants us to approve more debt without much if anything in the way of specific commitment as to what the money will be used for.

Secure Arkansas stands in opposition to this debt plan. The reasons behind this decision are …..

1) The state already has a very high number of road miles for its size. The problem is not a lack of road miles; rather it is that the state’s archaic Highway Commission System is not building them in the right places. Why reward a broken system with a giant pile of our money, especially borrowed money? 

Our position is that there should be no new bond money given to the Commission until its structure is reformed. Reforms should include making sure that the road money follows the cars; and insuring projects are selected on a more objective basis. We feel that in its current form, too much leeway is given to the personal preferences of a few powerful citizens who get themselves appointed to the Highway Commission.

 2) There is a shocking appearance of impropriety on the part of the Chairman of the State Highway Commission in this matter. The group behind the push to approve this additional debt, “Move Arkansas Forward” has received over half of its funding from entities connected to a single man- the Chairman of the Commission which would get to expend these public funds. Almost all of the rest of the money this group has raised is from contractors who stand to rake in piles of taxpayer money should this proposal pass. 

Hear this special audio report on the issue.

3) There is precedent for using GARVEE bond programs in conjunction with other funding sources to tack uneconomical light-rail and bicycle lane projects onto new highway construction. (See Denver’s “T-REX” for example.) Secure Arkansas opposes any co-mingling of funds or construction costs which would have the effect of diverting money from gasoline and diesel taxes to support light rail and bicycle infrastructure.

Mass transit should not be subsidized by automobile users. Mass transit systems should be built only where the free market justifies their costs. Using money from gasoline taxes to fund projects which incorporate light rail leads to a misallocation of resources. By using government intervention to artificially raise the price of operating an automobile and artificially lowering the perceived cost of mass transit, it has the effect of taxing Americans out of their cars and into mass transit.

Secure Arkansas calls on all citizens of the state to oppose any bond issue unless there is written assurance that no light rail projects will be co-implemented with any highway construction project financed by the bonds.

 4) The situation now is very different than it was in 1999 when a similar bond issue was passed by the people, and experience since then has shown that front-loading road repairs leads to poorly maintained roads on the back-end of the cycle. The Highway Commission exhausted the previous bond issue’s funding in a few years. That left little for road maintenance or construction for the rest of the 15 year cycle, as too much road money was devoted to paying off the bonds- along with money siphoned off for bond sales commission fees and interest. It is no wonder that some of our roads are in such poor condition. Let’s not make the same mistake again.

We favor a more balanced and stable approach which is less ambitious in new construction and leaves significant funding available for road maintenance in each of the 15 years under consideration. It is also important to note that in 1999 most of us felt sure that the Federal government would fulfill its commitment to turn over highway funds to the states, and this was the major revenue source used to pay off these bonds. Given the ongoing fiscal crisis in our federal government, who among us can be certain that five, eight, or ten years from now, the politicians in D.C. will make the highway payments that they say they will today? If D.C. does not send the money they claim they will, Arkansas taxpayers will be on the hook for it, probably necessitating a tax increase when we can least afford it.

In these times of deceptive posturing, many groups and politicians will claim the mantle of liberty and conservatism, even while they encourage people to allow the government to tax more, to borrow more, and to spend more. But conservative is as conservative does. We trust that you will not be fooled by those who may even be fooling themselves about what a “conservative” vote is in regards to this issuance of public debt.

We hope that you will join us in taking the advice of the Founders in regards to government debt, especially as it applies to this flawed proposal.

With Respect,
Mark Moore
Secure Arkansas Advisor on Policy and Strategic Planning

Post Script- There is an additional 20 minute audio report for those of you who wish to be even more fully informed on this tell-tale issue.

Thursday, September 08, 2011

European Union to Ban Cars From Cities by 2050 - A similar plan in the US

This Move Is To Save the Planet From Global Warming And Is Part of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21

"Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years. Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of 'zero' for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities. Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto 'alternative' means of transport. 'That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,' he said. 'Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.'" Title of article "EU to ban cars from Cities by 2050"

[Note: If cars are totally banned from cities by 2050, the number of cars will begin to be reduced drastically in the near future by "big brother" laws and regulations.]

The "carless society" is being promoted big time in our own country to prevent global warming. Michael Moore (American filmmaker, author and liberal political commentator) says in his article, "Goodbye, GM," June 1, 08, "The things we call cars may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet... The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps."

If this idea of a "carless" society seems incredible, then consider how unbelievable the things Obama is doing now would have been ten years ago. See Moore's entire article at this link:

Michael Moore continues by outlining several steps he would ask President Obama to implement: "Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities...or people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses," are a couple of his suggestions. Obama and the leftists are implementing mass transit, bikeways, and walkways in every way possible, giving billions in grants for such endeavors.

On May 17, 09, our Arkansas state paper, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, published an article taken from the New York Times entitled: "Residents of German district adopt car-free lifestyle" The first paragraph reads,

"Residents of this upscale community [Vauban] are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: They have given up their cars...Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called "smart planning."

The following quote from the article exemplifies the gist of the article:

"'When I had a car I was always tense. I'm much happier this way,' said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor. [Link no longer available]

Why would an Arkansas paper print such an article with such a positive slant? Even the word "car-free" in the headline indicates a positive slant to doing away with cars. Isn't it the beginning of preparing people for just this lifestyle of a "carless" society like liberals always do when they start their propaganda for a change they plan to implement? Remember a number of years ago when liberals started talking about the advantages of a nationalized health care, it was originally rejected with venom. Now it is so acceptable that people who oppose it are called radicals.

Jonesboro is much farther along in planning for a "carless" society than I could possibly have imagined. In response to a question I asked at a Metropolitan Planning Committee in 2010, I was told personally and publicly that they are planning for a future where our children, grandchildren, and even we senior citizens in Jonesboro will be depending on public transit, bicycles, and walking rather than driving our cars for transportation. That's the purpose behind Obama's push for all this public transportation

"Among the line items in the $3.7 trillion budget blueprint President Obama outlined this week is a six-year $53 billion investment in a national high-speed intercity passenger rail network. The Administration is pushing ahead with its plan to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years, despite the rejection of federal funds from newly-elected Republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio and now Florida."

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott is canceling a proposed high-speed train line between Orlando and Tampa, rejecting more than $2 billion from the federal government in a move echoing decisions by Republican governors in Ohio and Wisconsin. Scott said Wednesday the proposal is too costly for Florida and could put the state's taxpayers on the hook for roughly $3 billion, while ridership is unlikely to pay for the operating cost, meaning the state would have to pump even more money into the line each year...Republican Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have also rejected high-speed rail plans in a direct affront to one of Obama's favored causes."

In Wisconsin, who was to receive 8 billion for a train line from Madison to Milwaukee, each ticket on the train ride would cost Wisconsin taxpayers $125 above the cost the rider paid when including maintenance and operation costs based on government estimates of the expected number of users. "The project would have enough funds to establish a train line with speeds of up to 79 miles per hour, but when considering three various stops along the route, a trip from Madison to Milwaukee crawls in at around 58 miles per hour. Interstate 94, which follows the same route, has an obvious speed advantage." Title of article "Derailed" at this link:

In light of the added expense to taxpayers in this time of recession and possible depression, would it not be logical to conclude that Obama and liberals are pushing the high-speed trail lines for an alternate transportation system to cars. Amtrak lost $13 billion in the last ten years. If the government gets us out of our cars and onto mass transit, they will do it by force - government laws, higher gas prices, higher priced cars, and regulations. After Obama's reign in office, we see how that can be done.

In regard to Obama's speech tonight, a Democrat Gazette article reported: "President Barack Obama renewed his call for Congress to extend legislation to fund highways and mass-transit projects he said would save “hundreds of thousands” of jobs.

Look for Obama to stress the highway part in his speeches to make it hard for Republicans to oppose but stress the mass-transit projects behind the scenes and with the actual money.

Also see these articles:

On The Road To A "Carless" Society

Brummett Says Amen To A World Without Cars

How Obama and Gov Beebe Are Weaning Us Off Cars

Note: The move to do away with cars is based on so called "global warming" and based in Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 is a United Nations plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Following are some links that explain Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.
- Tea Parties Cannot Win Back The Republic Without This Information
Part 1 - America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”

Part 2 - Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.

This article can be read online at this link:

Who's Money is Behind Highway Debt Madness?

Get the shocking details via audio here.

Who is providing the funding behind the push to convince Arkansas voters to load themselves with $575 million in debt this Nov. 8th? Turns out most of it comes from entities connected to a single man, who just happens to be a multi-millionaire chairman of the state highway commission. Read the full list of financiers here.

This man is on the board of an organization which (rightly) slams politicians who push for taxes and debt (which is a defered tax). But isn't it a bit hypocritical when his company donates to the campaign that is pushing for the bond issue (maybe because they sell bonds!), AND donates to the group pushing for a sales tax increase in Little Rock?

Be sure and click the audio link to learn the details behind the eye-opening revelations behind the highway debt election.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Hurry Up and Borrow For What We Have Already Overbuilt

On November 8th Arkansans will be asked to go to the polls and give the State Highway Commission permission to load about $575 million dollars of additional debt onto the backs of Arkansas taxpayers. That's about $2,000 of additional debt for each taxpaying household in the state. We should deny them this permission. While the state does have legitimate highway needs, they can best be addressed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Handing them over $500 million dollars in one big pile simply encourages them to do what they did last time- overbuild new highway mileage at the expense of routine maintenance.

Arkansas is actually has an excessive amount of highway miles compared to other states. If building more roads was the key to more jobs, we would already have them. Consider these statistics.

Among the states, Arkansas is smaller than average in geographic size (29th out of 50), even smaller than that in relative population, (32nd out of 50), and 34th out of 50 in GDP. In public road mileage however, Arkansas ranks 17th in the nation. Of the sixteen states with more road miles than Arkansas, only two are anywhere near as small as Arkansas in terms of geography, population, or GDP. That would be Kansas and Iowa, two states who can make a highway dollar stretch much farther than we can due to their benevolent topography and geology.

The facts are very clear. Arkansas is not "under-highwayed" compared to other states. In fact, Arkansas taxpayers already face a burden of maintaining a volume of road miles that is far out of proportion to the resources of the state's working families. We have lots of miles, but those miles are often built in the wrong place- leaving high growth areas with congestion. That's likely a function of a State Highway Commission that is flawed in principle and archaic in structure (it's representation is based on population patterns in 1936). If they get more money without reforming the system, then they won't reform the system.

(Editors Note: I am no longer sure of the number of miles that have been added since 1999. )

The system is such that commissioners are more incentivized to build new miles than they are to do maintenance.
The best defense against this tendency is to allot highway money on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Study Links Abortion to Mental Disorder in Women

According to the study, 10% of all mental health disorders in women may be linked to induced abortion. It is estimated that 25% of adult women under 70 have had abortions. If that number is accurate, then 75% of such adult women have not had abortions. This implies that the 10% of mental disorders linked to abortion is concentrated in the 25% of women who have had them. That is to say, it implies that a staggering 40% of women who have had abortions have had mental health issues related to abortion.

Abortion is murder, and killing innocent people apparently induces mental health problems in a large portion of women. That is not so abnormal. What normal person could go through something like that without mental trauma? One could argue that going through something like that without any mental health issues indicates another mental disorder, albeit one not listed as a problem because sociopaths often do not consider their lack of empathy to be a problem.

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Where are the Tea Parties on the Debt Election?

In two months Arkansans are going to head for the polls to decide whether or not to load over $500 million dollars in additional debt onto our backs. The Republican Establishment is for it, the Democrat establishment is for it, and the bankers and finance people are for it. The papers are ham-handedly for it. What about the people that will be on the hook for the debt? Who is going to stand against the habitual borrowing in this state?

This 20 minute audio lays out the issue and explains why this is a very different situation than we had in 1999. Tea Party activists, this is your hour, where are you?

Saturday, September 03, 2011

Bipartisan Duplicity On Fuel Taxes and Debt

Arkansans Have Paid Off Some State Debt, So the Political Class Has Banded Together to Talk Us into Loading More Unto Our Backs

The Establishment media in this state and the heads of both establishment political parties have again joined forces in a stirring display of bipartisanship (which is a very different thing than nonpartisanship) in order that government of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers shall not perish from Arkansas' earth!

I refer to their joint efforts to load another round of debt onto the backs of Arkansas taxpayers- even when we could pay-as-we-go. Paying as we go however, leaves little in the way of bond sales commissions for the financial interests of this state. Plus, politicians have so much more fun spending money and giving away stuff when someone else "down the road" has to pay for it. Thus Governor Mike Beebe has called for a November Special election to ask the voters to take on more debt.

Citizens have had to endure extremely one-sided coverage of the issue of what we want to do about our GARVEE highway bond program, and a fuel tax that helped pay for it. The news reports mention that the bond issue passed with an overwhelming majority in 1999. They don't mention that the increase in diesel and motor fuel taxes, which was also a part of paying for this program, was passed by the ledge without a vote of the people.

Nor do they mention that a very similar proposal was soundly defeated just a year before by a wide margin. The difference was that Jim Guy Tucker, who was pushing the program, had lost the confidence of the state's voters. In 1999 people trusted Mike Huckabee. In the initial goodwill and false belief that he was a fiscal conservative, people trusted him when he said that we should vote for a program that was very similar to the one Tucker was advocating. In that wave of good feeling toward Huckabee, and with a constant media drumbeat in favor of the debt, the people switched their vote.

GARVEE bonds are issued under a federal program which basically allows even bond fees and interest to be repaid out of a state's stream of federal highway money. Of course, each dollar spent for fees and interest is one less dollar for road maintenance. The state's federal highway dollars were pledged as collateral for the loan, but, should those funds fail to materialize then the state's taxpayers would be on the hook to repay the bonds. Additional sources of revenue were also tapped. The state raised taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. While the increase on gasoline was for only three years, the increased tax on diesel fuel- with money earmarked to repay the bonds, was not slated to expire with the bonds.

Now the bonds are starting to be paid off. The purpose for which the tax was levied is ending, but they want to make the tax increase permanent by using it to fund a new round of borrowing. They could repeal the tax increase with a simple vote of the legislature. They could use the money for routine road maintenance on a PAYGO basis. Instead, they want to use it as collateral to borrow more money. Again, banksters don't get well when governments operate on a PAYGO basis. They want us to use debt. And our state leaders and media are very obliging.

Another very important point: If the FEDS don't come through, Arkansas taxpayers would be on the hook for the debt. In 1999 we were pretty confident that the Federal Government Highway money that we used as primary collateral on this borrowing was going to be there even 10-15 years down the road. Is there anyone out there today so insanely stupid as to have the same high degree of confidence that the Feds will keep the money flowing? Well, yes there is. The Chairmen of both the Democratic and Republican Parties seem to be that insanely stupid. Or at least they know where their bread is buttered.

(Editors note: I am not now sure of the number of interstate highway miles that have been added since 1999)

And speaking of hack journalism, how about that article that cites four or five sources that are in favor of the new debt and not one voice opposed to it? How is that for journalistic integrity? This bit in the Stuttgart paper had the same MO, but also had locals hinting that some of the goodies might come their way if they passed it. "Government is that great fiction by which everone attempts to live off of everyone else" - Freddy Bastiat

For a 20 minute audio which addresses this issue in more detail, click here.

Friday, September 02, 2011

Religious Right Rick and Other Debacles

Mark me down as one Christian who thinks the leadership of the Christian Right has got it wrong on Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Plus, the college education bubble, macro-sizing your evolution might be harder than you thought, and SWAT TEAMS raid Gibson Guitar for failure to pay protection money.

31 minutes of audio. Click here for the program.