Choices that Are Not Choices

The ruling elite are in a great hurry to bring fascism to America.   Since they own the media, people who oppose fascism cannot obtain reliable information about who to rally behind from said media.    The "choices" this media presents you are bad kabuki theater.  

For example, Piers Morgan is the designated "heel", to use a professional wrestling term since the whole phony left-right paradigm is as fake as the WWE, for those on the "right".    He might be a "face" to those on the left of course.  At any rate, in addition to his outrageous and insulting personal attacks on pro-2nd amendment Gun Owners of America spokesperson Larry Pratt, Morgan now tells Christianesque hipster Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Church fame) that the Bible is a flawed document and needs to be amended so as to recognize homosexual relationships as marriage!  Warren politely demurred and the two went on chatting.

The treatment of Warren was in no way similar to the treatment Pratt got.    It was clear that Pratt was on to be humiliated and insulted.   Warren was set up to be a hero of the right.   Here is the thing, Warren is a fascist too.  This  rather long but extremely profound audio  shows the root of the purpose driven movement to be fascism disguised as Christianity.

The global media gives those on the right fake heroes to rally behind.  Its called "controlled opposition".   If you don't know what it means, you should.

Them and Us

You would smile too if you were above the laws enforced on the little people

NBC's David Gregory waived around what even he identified as a 30 round magazine on national television. He was in the District of Columbia, where it is illegal to "possess" magazines of over 10 rounds.  He did this in an effort to push for more gun law restrictions on the rest of us.    NBC had called the D.C. police to ask if they could use such a magazine on the show, and were told "no" because it was against the law.  It seems they did it anyway, in defiance of the law, and with video evidence and a confession live on national television.

It could not be more clear that Gregory broke the law.  That has not stopped media elite personalities from across the fake left-right spectrum, including those posing as representing conservative America like FOX and the Wall Street Journal, from howling in protest at even the idea that Gregory should be investigated. They complain that it was clear he had no intention of committing a crime.  Well, neither would I if I had a 30 round magazine.   The media elite demand that their fellows be judged by their claimed intentions while the rest of us are sent to prison based on the letter of the law.

Look, I don't want David Gregory to go to prison for possessing a 30 round magazine, but unlike Gregory, I don't want anyone to go to jail for owning something that it has always been our right to own.    My point is that if Gregory is not punished, then none of us should be.   Since he won't be, none of us should be.  

When they start hauling people in for the crime of "possessing" one firearm or firearm component or another they could not possibly have more proof of guilt than they have on David Gregory.   That they would arrest us in the heartland while the media elites escape will only show that our ruling class has forsaken justice and equity in enforcement of the law.

Its Us and Them.   They continue to make criminals out of people who have hurt no one merely for doing  what they and their fathers have done all their lives.  Meanwhile, those laws of course don't apply to those who matter.  Such brazen injustice can only provoke justifiably outrage.   It is easy to see why such a blatantly venal, corrupt, and incompetent ruling class is in such a hurry to disarm us.

The Best and Worst Run States in America

We are here..........................^

Interesting take on the best and worst run states in America.   We did not make either list, winding up in the big middle.  But the reason we did not may have been faulting score keeping.   They list Arkansas as having no state debt.   We do of course have debt, tied to our federal highway funding, a coming half-cent sales tax increase, and some college bonds.  At least the citizens voted for that debt, unlike the 300 million dollars we owe the federal government for unemployment claims.   Gov. Beebe got us in that debt without the approval of anyone.  Because of that I believe he violated the Arkansas Constitution.  At any rate the fact that none of that debt seems to have been counted likely kept us off the "worst" list.

I do notice that states on the worst list seemed to be heavy supporters of Resident Obama.   So people who cannot manage their own states have imposed on us someone who cannot manage our nation- a fine argument for limiting the scope of the central government.

Documenting Bankster Descent into a Lawless America

This is a five star article from Zero Hedge.  I advise astute people to read it. The big banks have and are bleeding the heartland of America dry with the largest illicit transfer of wealth in human history.

Greenberg's Relentless War on the Working Class

Man O'War

I had the misfortune to pick up a copy of the editorial section of the state's only state-wide newspaper.   This is the paper (along with the predecessors from which it was forged) which has had such influence over the policy makers of this state over the decades, and as such bears considerable responsibility for the wretched economic conditions which the state finds itself in.

Only the northwest corner of our state had, until recently, a healthy regional rival paper, and not coincidentally only that corner of the state had a good run of economic and educational performance.   The only other part of the state to grow would be the seat of state government, in part because a growing state government apparatus sucked wealth and productivity from the rest of Arkansas with the Democrat-Gazette's approval.    I have often said we will never have good government in this state so long as the citizens give that newspaper credibility.

So my eye fell to the column written by Editor Paul Greenberg.  It was today's paper but it was like I had fallen into a time warp.   Greenberg's column was almost identical to the stuff he was writing back in 2006.   In a column he called "Still Fighting the Problem" he first equated anyone who objects to illegal immigration as being like those who opposed civil rights for black people in the 1960s.    Apparently, if there are any politicians who oppose granting amnesty to illegal aliens they are "demagogues".

In Greenberg's ossified mind, it appears there can be no valid public policy reason for opposing amnesty.  If you oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, then you must be racist.   If that sounds familiar, just substitute "Obama" for "amnesty for illegal aliens" and you will recognize where Paul gets his tactics.

This is the same shtick Greenberg was pulling years ago.  If the man has no new material since 2006 he should step aside and let someone else waste space in the paper.   Not only is his copy old, its wrong.  It was male bovine scat then, and it is male bovine scat now.    Opposing amnesty now does not equal racsim from the 1960s.   These are different issues from different centuries with different people and different legal circumstances.   His pathetic attempts to equate the two are stretches beyond any rational credulity threshold.  But then propaganda, and that's all he is doing here is using propaganda to demonize people who don't share his policy position, is not meant to survive rational analysis.  It is meant to herd people by fear and/or emotion.   Because of this, Greenberg himself is near to becoming the demagogue he so often accuses others of being.

Much of the rest of the long column uses what I call "The Borg Argument."   He basically says "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."    That is, we can't control our borders and it would cause catastrophic economic and human disruptions if we did.      This is defeatist nonsense.   The reason our borders are porous is that the ruling class want them to be porous.   They have spent more money and devoted more personnel trying to secure Iraq's borders than they have securing ours.

Those who control our political system make their money hiring people to work the capital they own.   It is in their interests to flood the market with labor in an effort to bid down the price.   Working class Americans have the opposite interests.   They make money selling their labor.   They benefit when the borders are tightened and only those immigrants who can really and legally add some value to our nation are allowed to come here.   Since the ruling class wants the cheap labor, open borders and ceaseless pushes for amnesty are what we get, regardless of what the majority of the citizens of this nation want.

Greenberg does not have to feel the heat with illegal aliens competing with him for employment and depressing his wages.   He just get his lawn cut for less money.   Since the ruling class typically live in gated communities in up-scale parts of town, and often send their children to the best schools, they are not in the least alarmed by the transformation of much of middle America into a third world slum by swarms of illegal aliens.   The don't even seem to care what 10 million more undereducated voters will do to our electoral system.    The rest of us though, have to live here.

In short, Greenberg is sanctimoniously trying to pass off policies that are in the best interests of him and his friends as morally superior to policies that are in the interests of working class Americans.   He wants to punish families who respect the law because rewarding those who did not respect it is in the economic interests of his cadre.    He would pass off disrespect of the law as a moral virtue and paint who insist on the rule of law as immoral.   When the riots start, he and men like him are going to wish that more people felt restrained by the very rule of law which he now disparages!

The economy is collapsing and Greenberg and his ilk were the ones in charge when it happened.  Even in mid-collapse, when more and more honest citizens cannot find a job with wages sufficient to support their families, Greenberg insists on pushing for more amnesty, which will only lead to more illegal immigration.  He wants to expand the labor pool even further, because apparently wages around here are still too high and job opportunities still too numerous!   The man is so myopic, so stuck in the 60s, and so fixated on his own self-perceived moral superiority, that he seems oblivious to the war he is waging on working class Arkansans in desperate economic straits.

Incredibly, immediately after his Bravo-Sierra "Borg Argument" he reminisces about an old commander who told his men to quit wasting time arguing that a job was impossible and instead start getting it done!    This of course runs counter to his previous argument that securing the border is Mission Impossible, but again this is propaganda Greenberg is engaging in, not journalism, and therefore his writing does not have to be able to withstand logical scrutiny.

The mission he urges us to undertake is to "solve" the problem of illegal immigration, by of course, making them legal!    We are wasting time arguing about it, he says, its time to solve it or it will never go away!  That's right, it will never go away.  That's because the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.   We will argue for policies in our interests, and the ruling class will argue for policies in theirs.   Greenberg suggests that it is time to end the war by having the working class surrender to the elites.   I suggest that it is time to end the war by returning this nation's government to its people.

Paul Greenberg ends his illustrious career in journalism as the Minister of Propaganda for the establishment in Arkansas.    As his title suggests, he is "Still Fighting the Problem."  But he sees "the Problem" is that the citizens of Arkansas want policies that support our interests rather than just laying down and letting our betters change the law to favor their interests.   He is still fighting the problem, and if you are a working class Arkansan who does not want to lay down for him, you are the problem.

Bicycle Snobbery

Here is an Arktimes interview with Tom Ezell, past president of Bicycle Advocacy of Central Arkansas.    I think the interview was meant to be favorable, but, well I will let you judge how he comes off.  From the comments section even the liberal Arktimes audience took exception.   The views expressed certainly lend credibility to claims by grassroots groups on the right (and left) that there is a master plan to re-make our inner cities, at great expense, so that cars will be harder to use.  

Revitalize This!

Bob Hester has a good look at the promises vs. the reality of downtown "revitalization" in Jonesboro.    This is not the only town that people are attempting to "revitalize" on the same flawed premises.   City planners are being mis-educated and City Councils need to know it.  Here is the real story.

Two More Disturbing Obama Eligibility Accounts

One group claims photographic evidence that files related to Obama's eligibility have been tampered with.   The other, and I think more serious story, has to do with a judge who dismissed a suit on Obama's eligibility by appealing to the reasoning of the fictitious judge in the Christmas classic "Miracle on 34th Street."   I wish I were joking.    That suit contends Obama is ineligible regardless of his place of birth because his father was a foreign national here at the behest of a foreign government, and thus is not a "natural born citizen" because another nation had a claim on his loyalty at birth.  

Since even Obama agrees that his father was a foreign national here on business at the behest of a foreign government, it is going to be hard to dispute that one.  The judge apparently wanted to drop the hot potato lawsuit but could not come up with any sound legal grounds to do so, therefore he used as his precedent a "ruling" from a fictitious judge in a movie about Santa Claus.   Unbelievable how low justice has sunk to in the country.   I guess then if you believe in Santa Claus, you also believe that Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the office in which he now sits.

The Politics of Fiscal Delusion and Obamacare

The hot-button issue in the Arkansas Legislature is whether or not the state wants to participate in Obamacare.     There are two main parts here.......

Perhaps the most expensive item in the whole plan is expanding Medicaid so that families whose household income is up to 130% of the poverty level can participate.  This is different from the issue of whether we set up an exchange, co-operate one with the feds, or do nothing in which case the feds have threatened to set one up for us without our input.   The exchanges under Obamacare provide subsidies for insurance for those over 130% of the poverty level.   Medicaid would cover all those under 130% of poverty level under the Obama plan, but states must decide (separate from the decision to open an Exchange) if they will expand Medicaid.

Medicaid in this state currently covers those adults whose incomes are less than 18% of the poverty level (but already covers children at higher levels).  To cover those adults all the way up to 130% of poverty level would require massive amounts of spending.   To encourage states to increase Medicaid coverage, we have the promise of the Obama administration that they will pay for 100% of the coverage for the first two years and 90% thereafter.

There is one last twist to the above, and it shows how clever the left really is.   The feds have always paid some portion of Medicaid, let's say around 70%.   When Obama was first elected he championed a stimulus bill.   A major component of that stimulus bill was that the feds increased Medicaid payments, say to around 85% of the total.    That stimulus has now come to an end.   This means that just as states were used to getting 85% of their Medicaid tab picked up by the feds, the percentage drops to around 70%- unless a state capitulates and raises coverage, in which case we have the fed's promise they will pay for it all for two years and 90% thereafter.

I admire their cunning, their diabolical foresight, and the amount of integration it took to put the states in this position.   Because of the looming cuts in Medicaid, Arkansas will need to come up with almost $150 million extra dollars just to keep coverage where it is now- unless they agree to trust Washington and massively increase who is covered.  The left is thinking years ahead.  They are constantly plotting and setting things up.  If the right does not start empowering people able to think at that level and stay five moves ahead on the chess board of public policy they will simply continue to lose.

Some Arkansans are screaming for us to take this "free money."  Problem: There is no money.  Only the promise of money from the most indebted institution in human history- the federal government of the United States.   They cannot keep their past promises, much less this current one.  They can only finish destroying the dollar and the economy trying.

If the dollar is destroyed, Washington loses its means to keep these promises and people who sign up and become dependent on this new plan are worse off than before.   If Washington reneges on its promise to pay 90% of the bills for eternity then our state can't afford it and again those who became dependent on the system are worse off.   We should say "no" to this "free money" from our bankrupt and delusional federal government just as a fish should say "no" to "free food" on the end of a hook.    Washington does not have the means to keep its promise.   This is going to be a "bait and switch" where states will wind up paying for more and more of this program.   If we can't afford that, and we can't, then we should just say "no."

It really does not matter whether you like the idea of expanding Medicaid or hate it.  It does not matter whether you want to help the poor or want to eat the poor.   The fiscal reality is, neither the state nor the nation have the money to pay for it, promises to the contrary not-withstanding.   A person who says "we can't afford this" is not a heartless person, they are a realistic person.   They are a grown-up in a landscape of perpetual adolescents who think prices are evil and only exist to keep people from getting things.

Participating in the insurance exchanges is a separate issue.  I predict even the GOP will sell out on this one and opt to at least a partnership with the feds in an exchange.    I have heard Republicans like Speaker Davy Carter say that the feds will just run over us if we don't.  So what?  That just means that they will build their own exchange.  Why not let the feds own it?  Because then none of the Arkansas lawmakers will have any input on which insurance firms get the gravy associated with any government redistribution of wealth.   There are powerful insurance interests in Arkansas that want in on the government gravy.

I fear the decision on whether to cooperate with the feds in setting up an exchange will not be decided on what will be good for the general public, but rather what will benefit existing insurers in the state.   I believe Obamacare will fall apart and be a complete mess in a decade or so, if that long.    Do we want to own any of that mess?   If some of our firms are in on it then they will have a vested interest in keeping the system going long after it is clear that it is a failure.   See ethanol subsidies that won't die.  

So the two main state issues with Obamacare are separate, but they have one thing in common.  Do we really want to partner with the federal government?  Do we trust what they are telling us?  Do we want more people in this state to be vested with their interests?   I'd say no.  I think most grassroots activists would.  But  our "representatives" may not represent us on this one.

Why it is Impossible to Reform the GOP

Priebus Throws the Hammer Down on Dissent

  This is what happens when grassroots activists really succeed in taking over a state party. Actually, that is a highly sterilized version of what happened. The full story demonstrates to any person with the courage to accept it why it is a waste of life energy to attempt to take back either of these hopelessly corrupted and purchased political parties.

 They may have elaborate forms and functions which create the illusion that they are controlled from the bottom up, but should any group with a true grassroots bent take control of a state party the illusion is dispensed with. The parties are simply private clubs, controlled at the top, and funded largely by interests which are global rather than American in nature. And you can't change that. You can only waste life trying.

 The grassroots group which took control of the Nevada state GOP happened to be Ron Paul supporters, but it doesn't matter who the establishment cheats- all that matters is that you know that even if you and your friends ever manage to win fair and square that you will be cheated. The Romney campaign and the national GOP conspired to operate a "Shadow Party" in the state called "Team Nevada". It was composed of many of the establishment types legally ousted from their offices in county and state conventions.

 So, despite all their complaints about other people who "take their ball and go home" when they lose instead of sticking around and building the party, they took their ball and went home. Only this ball was in the form of cash. The national GOP diverted funds which should have been spent on the Nevada GOP to "Team Nevada" as well.

 The article claims "Priebus confirmed that he has held multiple conversations with the Nevada Republican Party chairman and other Silver State GOP officials, with meetings planned in January to discuss how the RNC might help the Nevada GOP transform itself. The party was so organizationally debilitated throughout 2012 that it was incapable of performing even basic party-building activities, causing the RNC and top state Republicans to form a shadow party to run essential operations such as voter turnout."

 It is the national party which needs re-habbing, not the Nevada GOP. The national GOP has lost touch with its former base, which explains why more and more former conservative Republicans are self-IDing as "Independents" and why their Milquetoast candidate got millions of votes less than John McCain. If the Nevada GOP was "dysfunctional" it was because of the shivs in the back they got from "Team Nevada" and the National GOP. The national GOP helped form and fund a rival to the duly elected Republican party and then has the nerve to complain that the state party can't do its job!

 "Team Nevada" was formed in May of 2012, right after establishment forces lost races for key party positions. And "Team Nevada" was staffed by many of the same people who were ousted. If Nevada was "dysfunctional throughout" 2012, how did they know that in month five of 2012, and why staff "Team Nevada" with the same people who were, until a few days earlier, running the "dysfunctional" state party? No friends, what happened was that the grassroots won one, fair and square. The establishment can't tolerate dissent, so they formed a rival group, which their hack politicians then worked through. That group is still operating.

 The Governor and other state elected officials are more loyal to the national HQ in DC than they are grassroots Republicans in their own state. They are threatening to continue to work through "Team Nevada" if the state GOP does not bow down.  The party has achieved escape velocity from the people.  All the guys in DC need is a small cadre of shills on the ground to give their top-down control the illusion of legitimacy.

 Activists, the harder you work to win this rigged game, the worse you will be cheated.

Martin Media Madness Strikes Again

I have already shared with you the Alternate Reality Reporting of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette concerning Secretary of State Mark Martin. When that gentleman is the subject of an article in the only state-wide newspaper the important thing to remember is that they have no credibility. You can't believe one single word of what they write about him. Not. One. Word.

Now television station KATV Channel 7 reporter Janelle Lilley has embraced the psychosis. Martin made a comment on his facebook page about morality that most Americans a century ago knew to be true. In today's climate, the post is "controversial", which I feel compelled to point out is not the same thing as "untrue". What is untrue is Lilley's short report. In her online report she claims "Martin later removed the controversial post from his page". Well, I just pulled the same quote she cited from his facebook page seconds ago. It's still up, along with around 50 comments from Martin and others discussing the subject. Here is the quote"

Charity is not virtuous when it is not voluntary. Using the police powers of the state to hold a gun to somebody's head in order to pick their pockets to give to another person — no matter how seemingly noble or good the cause — is evil.

It sounds a lot like a Grover Cleveland quote I heard about welfare, and he was elected President, twice.

I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

Of course, that was in a morally grounded America. Now "morality" is considered to be voting to use the government to take earnings from other people against their will and give it to your friends. The poor do it to the rich and the rich do it to the poor.

Today statements like Mark Martin's merit a different reaction, such as the one Lilley cites from Democratic Party of Arkansas Spokesperson Candace Martin. Listen to this one, "We have huge challenges that we are facing both on the federal level and on the state level, and it's going to take real, noble leadership that will stand up and not allow this type of debate to go on. It's not even really a debate. It's just inflammatory language," The bold was my addition.

So how is what Martin said controversial compared to that? What other ideas should be declared off limits for discussion by our political-media ruling class? Apparently, as writer and historian Thomas Woods has noted, we are only allowed to debate within the three inches of intellectual political thought that lie between Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell. Any ideas outside of that (even if Presidents around a century ago held similar ideas) are condemned as too extreme to even mention, first amendment or no. The real controversial statement in this story is what Candace Martin said. Lilley tries to impugn the wrong Martin!

For some reason, the media types in this state are extremely willing and eager to libel Secretary of State Mark Martin. That tells me he is a true outsider. The good ole boys don't trust him. He's somehow messed up and gotten too close to real power without being in the club. That's my hypothesis about why they have gone to such extremes to spread one falsehood after another about him. That makes me think, despite whatever faults he may have, that Martin should be supported by the grassroots.

On the Nature of the Trinity

I muse on the nature of the Trinity. It is one of the great paradoxes of the Christian faith that God is considered to be One God, yet exists in three separate persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit). Is God one or three?

It is not enough to say that God the Father is God outside the Universe (outside of space and time), God the Son is God operating within the universe (many scriptures tell us that the Son did the actual creating of the Universe), and God the Spirit is God at work within the non-material part of man (which may have spillover into the physical mind and body). Man himself seems to be ordered on a shadow of this pattern, with a spirit which has a basic orientation, a mind which considers how to operate and obtain his desires, and a body which acts out the unctions of the spirit as ordered through the mind. Sometimes of course, the three facets of our nature can be at odds with each other. Our body could be tired while our mind and spirit want it to keep going. Our mind can dwell on thoughts which grieve our spirit.

Still, we are not three persons, at most we are one person with a body, soul, and spirit. Describing the members of the Trinity based solely on how they operate risks falling into the trap of de-personalizing the persons of the Trinity into mere modalities or manifestations of a single being. As we see how Christ operated with the Father in scripture it is clear that we are looking at two beings even if they are both God. The Son had an independent will, which He choose to align with that of God the Father.

I believe the paradox can be resolved by the simple understanding that God is a higher order being than man is. Each person of the Trinity is every bit as much a complete individual being as we are (if not more), but together they are united as a higher order (the highest order) being.

Consider the case of a world of single-celled organisms. They float around in their pond and interact. Paramecium, Amoeba, Algae, and various Foraminifera scoot around doing their thing. Then a multi-cellular organism arrives on the scene. Each cell of the single animal would, if it existed on its own, be its own animal. Yet each of those animals, though every bit as much a complete cell as all the other unicellular animals, is also a higher-order animal. To be touched by a cell composing a limb of the animal is the same as being touched by the animal. The three, or the many, are also one. They are fully cell and fully multi-cellular animal.

Through becoming members of the Body of Christ, we can be integrated into the Godhead. We lose our selves, but not our individuality, by the process of conforming our will to His. This corporate being, the Body of Christ, which has access to the Divine Highest order of life, has I believe, a counterfeit rival. Just as God wishes mankind to join together in corporate being, so Satan desires it. In the Kingdom of God, incorporation is by permission, desire, and free will of the individual person. Their individuality is not lost, but renewed. Like Christ, no matter how great their unity in the Godhead, they retain their individual free will - but they choose to align it with the Father because in this kingdom all government is self-government.

In the counterfeit corporate being planned by the Devil, the problem of individuality is handled differently. Rather than renewal of the existing individual with permission, the group will is employed to crush the individual will. Coercion is the tactic and external government of all kinds is the tool. That or some other sin, all of which lead to slavery- a condition in which our own will is subjugated rather than submitted. This view of life sees individuality as a disease to be stamped out for the good of the whole, rather than a gift that has a rightful place to serve.

More Troubles for Macroevolutionary Hypothesis in Ediacara

The phrase "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance (geologically speaking) of all animal body plans (phyla) which ever existed on earth. With one minor exception which turns up a bit later, the fossil record goes from almost nothing in the way of multi-cellular animals to an ocean full of a diversity of such forms. To be sure, there were many variations on Cambrian themes later in the record, but the themes show up, in geological terms, right away.

This sudden appearance of all living basic body plans does not square with what one would expect if macro-evolution were true. Instead we might expect to see one or two forms arise, then more split from them, and latter on more split off from them, and so forth. The fossil record should have looked like a branching tree, not a landscape of numerous independent bushes.

For years, creationists have pointed to the Cambrian explosion as evidence for the idea that Intelligent Design is a better explanation for what has been found in the fossil record than macro-evolution. Evolutionists have for years attempted to down play the "explosiveness" of the Cambrian Explosion. They have been looking for any possible precursors to life forms in the Cambrian, with very little luck.

Up until today, many of them pinned their hopes on an enigmatic array of fossils called the Ediacarans. These strange fossils show up in rocks about the right age- a bit older than the 543 million years ago that marks the Cambrian Explosion. Here for example, is the Royal Ontario Museum's attempt to link Ediacaran life forms to some of the phyla which appear in the Cambrian. This period is also referred to as the Vendian, and Cal Berekley makes a more sutble suggestion connecting these fossile to the Cambrian animals here.

Not all evolutionists bought into the idea that Ediacaran, or Vendian, fossils represented the ancestors of Cambrian life. But a significant portion at least suggested it, not because the fossils were a good fit, but just because there was little else there to prevent the un-PC conclusion that the oceans went from empty of multi-cellar animal life to chock-full of a vast array of it in the blink of a geological eye. What else do they have, "worm tracks" that it turns out look just like formations made by living single-celled protists?

Now it turns out that the best explanation for the Vendian or Ediacaran fauna is that they were ancient lichen-type organisms which did not live in oceans or lakes at all, but on the surface of the dry earth. It turns out the Vendian "fauna" might be closer to "flora".

If this checks out, it appears that what ancient writers would consider land plants arose before the explosion of multi-cellular animal life appeared in the oceans. That order, along with the sudden appearance of animal phyla, lines up a lot better with the first chapter of Genesis than it does with Macro-evolutionary theory.

Hidden Agenda-Way Federal CDBG Money Is Used Locally

Following is a letter submitted to the Jonesboro Sun by Iris Stevens and printed today, December 12, 2012 on page A 4.  Hidden Agenda is the title the paper gave the letter. You may want to find out how the CDBG money is being spent in your area.

Hidden Agenda

The Jonesboro City Council city council approved the 2013 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan on Dec 4th.  Following is the way most of the federal CDBG grant of $677,150.00 to Jonesboro for 2013 is allocated:

$105,000 on administrative costs (bureaucracy), $130,000 on a rehabilitating and expanding the Hispanic center; another $10,000 for "Hispanic community outreach, bilingual phone line, translation services, and job placement;" $100,000 on a community market place with this example:  "the Hispanic Community will use Jonesboro T.O.W.N. Market to sell their tamales," $15,000 for the Foundation of Arts; and $50,000 for a Playground in North Jonesboro.

Another $37,500 is allocated for North Jonesboro Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative with this description:  "Funds will be used for the AmeriCorps, cooking utensils; and food for the 'Cooking Matters' class, NJNI documentary, ASU CARE office costs, Job training and development,  community outreach,  exercise equipment for Healthy Futures Strategy, travel and training for the NJNI Coordinator, and membership dues."

The above allocations include $447,500 of the $677,150.00 federal grant for 2013.

I don't know if the city council members know what was in this 47-page document or if they were told the same thing the Jonesboro Sun reported, i.e., "The CDBG program targets activities that benefit low-to moderate-income families, eliminate slum and blight, and revitalize impoverished neighborhoods."

The average citizen of Jonesboro would name many other things that would be more beneficial for citizens than the spending allocations listed above, especially since our debt limit is almost 17 trillion, and we are borrowing money from China to spend on these things.  Is there any wonder that citizens don't trust their government?  Is this what neighborhood revitalization means - redistributing the wealth to foreign-born residents, cooking classes, and exercise equipment?

The following two quotes are found in the 2013 Action Plan: "These projects were selected after careful consideration of the City of Jonesboro's needs in relation to HUD's national objectives," and "The City of Jonesboro continues to place major emphasis on HUD's Priority goals of Housing, Neighborhood Revitalization."   It is clear that our taxes are being used to satisfy HUD's goal and objectives not the objectives of the citizens of Jonesboro.

Perhaps readers would like to discuss these expenditures with the city council members and urge them to read the Jonesboro Vision 2030 plan that incorporates many of the same ideas as listed in this 2013 Action Plan and in UN Agenda 21 - before they vote on that 700-page document early next year.   Iris Stevens

See this letter with full documentation at this link: http://www.wpaag.org/J'boro%202030%20Hidden%20agenda%20let%20CDBG%20funds%20listed.htm

Party System Destroys Representative Government

No doubt conservative voters who know about it are upset that House Speaker John Boehner has punished some conservative lawmakers by yanking them off choice committees. The rest have been told they are being watched. This is preparatory to another fold on raising the debt limit and taxes.

But what can they do about it? Nothing. Not a thing. D.C.s ruling class has obtained "escape velocity" from grass roots activists. Politicians who play ball with the big-government system will get protection from their party, cover from the media, and funding from the global corporations which have purchased what was formerly your federal government. It's not even American money that's buying these elections anymore. Oh, an outsider may win an open seat once in a while, but the kind of treatment Boehner just handed out is only a taste of what they can expect unless they "grow in office" and start playing ball.

In the unholy trinity of disenfranchisement we have a corporate media which not only fails to cover the stories that matter, but actually attacks independent voices which raise concerns outside a narrow range of political dialogue our masters have deemed acceptable. They won't do the hard work of asking the tough questions and instead savage and dismiss those who do.

The other branch of the trinity are political parties which greatly facilitate centralized control. I have come to the conclusion that all legislators should be elected without a party label. No man can serve two masters. They either answer to their party, or they answer to their constituents.

When the president or governor is of their party, they don't even need constituents because they get their marching orders from the titular head of their party. This is the exact opposite of the Founders intent, where the legislature, closest to the people and with power most dispersed, was to make the laws. The executive branch was only there to execute the laws that the legislative branch made. Now we have them passing 3,000 page bills none of them have read that were drafted by Executive Branch toadies. Heck, the bills are even known by the name of the Executive now (Obamacare). I can remember when bills were named after legislative branch members.

There is no "taking back" either of these two parties. People have been trying that for decades now, and the situation is worse than it ever was and will continue to get worse because these parties have become entities with a life of their own that don't need grassroots activists. All they need is a small cadre who gets crumbs of loot from the table in order to present the bare illusion of legitimacy to the mis-informed masses. They don't need you for money. They don't need you for legitimacy. The media, owned by the same corporate masters they are serving, will give them that.

Look, maybe some of you are not Ron Paul fans, but what happened to his supporters is instructive for anyone who thinks they can take back the party. The establishment cadre's resorted to fraud, cheating, and outright physical violence against Paul supporters when they got too close to taking over the state party.

In Louisiana the establishment forces illegally changed the rules at the last minute so that no matter what the delegates wanted, the outcomes were pre-determined by the insiders. When the Paul people simple turned their chairs around and held their own convention (because the establishment guy would not yield the floor or follow the rules) some rent-a-cops came in and broke one Paul delegate's fingers and dislocated the prosthetic hip of another one. See the video for yourself here.

But Louisiana politics are known for being dirty, right? True, but other sorts of outrages are occurring whenever the establishment guys don't get their way. In Nevada, Romney supporters had hundreds of fake badges made and tried to flood the convention floor. When the Paul folks called for credentialing, they vanished at the first break. The Paul folks took over the Nevada GOP, so the national GOP just collaborated with Romney to start a shadow party in that state and shut out the legitimate state GOP. On their way out, the shills transferred all of the state party's money to a local GOP group still safely in their control.

Paul folks took over the Iowa GOP and not only did the party money spigots turn off, but their Republican Governor suggested that the time had passed for their famous straw poll. Can you imagine the titular head of the party suggesting ending a straw poll that brought the state party so much money and attention over the years? Look for the national GOP to move Iowa back in the pecking order if they can't toss out the Paulians and re-install their compliant shills. They need someone "reliable" counting those votes for the next straw poll!

Paul, with millions of fanatical supporters and millions of dollars, is just the latest failure in the effort to "take back" the Republican party. Those of his supporters which can be co-opted with flattery and promises of "influence" will be co-opted. Those who won't play ball will be back-stabbed and marginalized. If worse comes to worse, the national party will simply do what they did in Nevada during the Romney campaign- do business through the cadre of shills who lost control of the state party and make them the defacto Republican party during the election cycle.

You cannot win in a contest where the other side makes the rules, changes the rules in the middle of the game, and if they lose according to those rules they simply ignore them and bull doze over you anyway. The moral decision is to quit the game and denounce it for the obvious fraud it is, not compromise yourself to a system you know is corrupt in hopes of somehow gaining "influence". You have as much chance joining the Gambinos in the hope of "reforming" and "taking them back" for any moral purpose.

If you just want a piece of the pie for yourself, they might deal with you - if you can help them get more pie. But if you are there to seriously suggest that they get all of their dirty little fingers out of the pie that is the wealth and earnings of the American people then the wolves will mark you as one of the enemy. Only posers, who claim they stand for such positions but do not follow with action, are kept around by the establishment just in case they need to fool people one more time.

If we could somehow abolish political party candidates for all legislative offices we might have a chance of getting our government back again because then the masters would have to buy each candidate individually instead of buying a party apparatus which leverages their purchases. Even better, increase the number of congressmen to ten times the number we currently have(at the founding we had a congressman for ever 50K citizens) and ban parties from sponsoring legislative candidates. That would make that once august body too hard to buy off, and much easier for a group of determined grassroots activists to take back. Let's remember this for America 2.0, when we have to reboot because these rapacious incompetents have run America 1.0 into the ground.

New Boots are Not the Answer; Moral Renewal Is

"Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." - Matthew 9:2

Millions of Americans, including me, were moved when we learned that a NY police officer spent $100 of his own money to buy a homeless man boots on a freezing cold day.     Now we get reports that the homeless man is again wandering around NY City barefoot.    He says he is hiding the boots from fear of getting killed over them, but many wonder if there is a more disappointing explanation.   At any rate, the man has a brother who has expressed a willingness to take him into his home at any time, but also says that his brother "has chosen this lifestyle."

Our post-modern era of decline believes that social work consists primarily of providing the material needs of man.  Matters of the spirit are of little or no consequence.   Such thinking could not be more mistaken.   The wise-fools who run our post-truth culture start by discounting the existence of God.  Since they do not know who God is, they do not know who Man is, and as a consequence are incapable of even asking the right questions, much less getting the correct answers, on issues of public policy.

Jesus understood clearly the correct order of priorities when ministering to needy persons.   In Matthew, a paralyzed man was lowered through the roof by his friends so that Jesus might heal his body.  This man had physical needs that were far more urgent than those of the subway beggar.   In spite of the importance of this, before Jesus ministered to his physical need, He started with the man's spiritual needs.  "Your sins are forgiven  you." he told the man.    Today, it would be a scandal if social workers ever even told their "clients" that they had sins which needed forgiving.   The most critical area of life cannot be addressed under the post-modern paradigm.   

What good is it to buy a man shoes if he uses the money for the next drug fix?  What good is it to restore movement to a paralyzed body if that restored ability is used to pursue a degrading life of sin all the way down the road to Hell?  Before Jesus gave him his body back, He put the man's soul in order.   Our ruling class has bankrupted the nation in part because they attempt to solve social problems in ignorance of the true root causes.   

That is sad enough, but what is even worse is that many alleged Christian churches suffer from the same ignorance.   They really think that social work begins, and in practice ends, with the provision of material goods to those who lack them.    It is difficult for me to muster much outrage at governments who won't follow the Divine wisdom of Christ on the matter when even so-called Christian churches refuse to do so.

Deconstructiong Cantor's Plan; And Libertarian Immigration Dogma

  The Col. and I are tired of the lies.

Republican House leader Eric Cantor led in proposing what he and his cohorts insisted on calling a "jobs bill".   USA Today reports and says this about what Cantor and company repeatedly called a "jobs bill" ; "House Republicans still smarting from their poor showing among Hispanics in the presidential election are planning a vote next week on immigration legislation that would both expand visas for foreign science and technology students and make it easier for those with green cards to bring their immediate families to the U.S.".

Like Col. Kurtz, if there is one thing I despise it is lies.   The great mass of lies are acts of disrespect from whoever is telling the lie toward the person being lied to.   Lies that are insults to the intelligence aggravate the already offensive and disrespectful nature of the lie.    Cantor is not pushing a "jobs bill" as he so often claimed.   He is pushing an ethnic pandering bill.   He is pushing a corporate welfare bill.    But that's not what the Republicans are calling it.

USA Today spelled out half of the GOP's true motivation.   They want to appeal to voters who put their ethnicity first by softening on immigration, but in a way that they hope will let in their sort of Hispanics, not the Democrat-voting sort of Hispanics.    Meanwhile, millions of their base are increasingly identifying themselves as independents and millions of their former voters refused to pull the lever for their latest presidential nominee.  Instead of reaching out to their own disaffected former base, they are choosing to alienate them further by going even further left and resorting to racially obsessed hyphenated Americanism.

Unless these are rich foreign students who bring lots of cash from their family into the country, this plan will not be a net creator of jobs.  Neither will bringing in the non-working (since they will not be given green cards) family members of present green card holders.  Students and non-working family members are net consumers, not net producers.   You cannot on the net "create jobs" (that is real jobs that result in increased wealth) by adding consumers who do not produce.    Ergo, Cantor's plan will result in the exact opposite of it's claims.

Now there are always caveats to generalizations, and I want to point out a couple here.    If a green card holder is sending the preponderance of his earnings back to his or her home country, then bringing the family here and keeping the money here could add jobs.   But those with a green card who send a preponderance of their earnings back home are precisely those green card holders who are least likely to bring their families here.   That is the profile of a foreign worker who is working elsewhere temporarily in order to build a better life in what they consider their real home.    Now if their family could obtain sufficient public benefits then they might be induced to start over in their work-country, but then people who come here because our public benefits and welfare programs are so generous are not the sort to build prosperity on either.

A student who comes here on a visa might be induced to stay and work for an American company, but many of them will come to get their education (consume without producing) and then head home.   No specifics are given, but with as much money as our government is throwing at education, these foreigners could come here to obtain access to a heavily taxpayer subsidized college education and then go home.   That's not a way to build a prosperous economy either- but certain global corporations operating in America will benefit from such a policy at the expense of the typical taxpayer.

An engineering firm which had openings for 1,000 more engineers over the next 10 years might have some trouble filling those openings at their current compensation levels.     One solution would be to raise wages to the market price, but why do that?  By claiming you can't get enough "qualified" workers (at the price you wish to pay) compliant government officials will simply change the rules to allow an avalanche of foreign students into the nation to major in a given specialty, subsidized by the public treasury.  

It is my conclusion that neither policy is, in the vast majority of cases, a net job creator for the country.   Sure, some jobs will be gained, college professors who are training students who take their skills home, social workers to provide "benefits" for the non-working family members of green card holders, but these jobs don't add wealth, and the mis-allocation of resources will in the whole cost us more jobs than we gain.  

Unfortunately many activists have been so mis-educated that they don't care to analyze policy this deeply.  Libertarians at base do not accept the right and necessity of national borders, and even some conservatives have been trained reflexively to support whatever the corporate media calls "free market".

If such conservatives would think it through, they might notice the absurdity of ascribing the term "free market" to a government run plan to allocate an increased supply of workers to whichever specified fields contributors to the political system wish to pay less for.    A free market approach would involve private firms paying higher prices for labor in a given field, encouraging others in the labor market to select that field over others.  But paying more for labor is not in the interests of those who make money by hiring people to work capital.   It is in the interest of most Americans who make their living selling their labor, but these are the voices of the "little people" that don't seem to count much anymore.

There is a doctrine in some "free market" conservative and libertarian circles that adding more labor inputs is always good for an economy and creates wealth.    I choose the word "doctrine" because such beliefs are often held to with a religious fervor, even in the face of evidence that such truths don't apply to every situation.    There is a whole industry of economists (paid by the same government-corporate complex which benefits from such polices as Rep. Cantor is pushing) assuring us that adding "workforce" creates wealth.  The truth is that human economic interactions are so complex that the veracity of such a statement cannot be empirically tested to a scientifically satisfactory degree.   In a scientific test of a hypothesis, one should control for everything except the one variable being tested.   This of course is impossible on this question.  Thus, we must use inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion which makes sense to us.

If added labor inputs always help an economy, why don't they help specific companies in that economy?   That is, why do profitable companies ever quit hiring?  Why do they ever lay workers off?  Why do they even quit taking applications?    Forget theory. In reality once you have optimum labor inputs even the sorting costs to ID potential new employees is often not worth the effort.   In reality there is an optimum balance between the amount of labor needed to work a given amount of capital.   If 1,000 volunteers showed up to work for free at a factory will that factory be more efficient?  How about 10,000?  At some point it is clear that additional labor inputs do nothing to create more wealth working that available capital and in fact they will be getting in the way on the factory floor and interfering with production.

Third world nations experience this truth on a large scale daily.   There are too many people relative to the amount of capital available to be worked.   Vast numbers of them eke out a subsistence living, consuming what little they produce and adding nothing to modern economic output.    Would adding 20 million illegal immigrants from Mexico to the nation of Bangladesh help their economy?  Would adding 20 million mechanical engineers from various foreign nations?   Of course not.   There is not the capital available to benefit from such labor inputs.  Labor must have capital to work.   If Bangladesh foolishly spent the resources it had training 20 million mechanical engineers (half of whom went home after getting the training) then it would be even poorer than it is now.   The only beneficiaries would be the few firms in that nation who employed mechanical engineers.   They could hire such engineers for a song.

Obviously this would be a waste of resources, but even when there is a better match between economic need and foreign skill, there are hidden costs involved.   There are costs involved moving from one culture to another.   There are frictions involved when groups from different cultures have to live together.   And of course, if there is a welfare state in place, then one must be careful to consider those costs in determining net economic benefit.   Milton Friedman once famously declared that you cannot have both open borders and a welfare state.    We have a welfare state at the moment and so, right now, open borders would be most unwise.

My point is that importing a foreign labor force rather than paying your domestic work force more results in all sort of other costs which are not paid by the companies benefiting from the imported labor.   These costs cannot be accurately calculated, we must use our heads to approximate them, and make policy accordingly.   The simplistic and doctrinaire belief that more workforce always means more wealth works only in a theoretical world where costs are accurately assigned and workers from different cultures are interchangeable without any larger consequences for society.

None of that of course, reflects reality.  And we need to make public policy based on justice and reality, not theory.    How much wealth would be added to our nation if we imported a million Typhoid Marys to work in our food service industry?    How well can what free society we have left survive if we import into our culture millions more people who come from and are comfortable with dictatorships, corruption, and socialism?