Friday, December 31, 2010

Ronald Reagan was a RINO

by Rod Williams, Dec. 31, 2010 - Even conservative icon former President Ronald Reagan could not pass muster today with the faux-conservative populist faction of the Republican party that fashions themselves as the "real Republicans." Reagan would not pass the Party Purity test and would be denounced as a RINO.

Below is a list of Reagan's sins that would get him denounced as a RINO and targeted for purging from the party.

  • His background: Reagan was once a liberal Democrat, an admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies. He was an ex-Hollywood actor and an ex-labor union leader. 
  • He would fail the "family values" and religious test: He was divorced, had a poor relationship with his children, had a gay son, and he did not attend church regularly.
  • He raised taxes: He signed laws that raised taxes 11 times and the 1982 tax hike was the largest hike in history at that time.
  • He supported and Congress passed into law Immigration reform or "amnesty for illegal aliens."
  • National debt: Our national debt more than tripled during Reagan’s time in office. We went from a major creditor nation to a leading debtor nation.
  • Reagan compromised: He "worked across the aisle", he negotiated, he cut deals. One of his most successful deals was the 1983 agreement extending the Social Security trust fund's solvency for a couple of generations by raising the retirement age and expanding social security to government employees.
  • He appointed liberal judges: Judge Vaughn Walker who recently struck down California's proposition 8 which barred gay people from marrying was a Reagan appointee. 
  • Reagan accomplished arms control: Reagan made bold, some would say radical, proposals for nuclear arms reductions. Reagan proposed the abolition of all nuclear-armed missiles. Reagan and Gorbachev eventually concluded the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement and established the foundation for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) process.
  • Reagan advocated playing nice: Regan's 11th Commandment was, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any other republican.” He was civil. He advocated a "big tent" Republican Party. He courted those outside the party. He reached out to “Reagan Democrats." In order to build a majority he campaigned for many people with whom he disagreed.
Yep, Reagan was a RINO.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Names to call Republicans

A Republican with whom you disagree is a "Rino.”  A Republican with whom you really disagree is a "Rino Neo-con Republican." Some Republicans are " dyed-in-the-wool Rino, neo-con Republican." If you want to play the class envy card you can call a Republican a "Country Club Republican."  Thus we have the "neo-con, Country Club, dyed-in-the wool Rino." If a Republican ever changes his mind or reverses his position when circumstances change he may be a  "flip-flopping, Rino, Country club, neo-con Republicans."  We also have "traitor republican Rinos." And then we have the "establishment insider-old boy network Republicans."  We also have "Rockefeller Republicans" and "Blue Blood Republicans."

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

You might be a Rino.

by Rod Williams, Dec. 28, 2010 - Are you a Rino? RINO is the acronym for "Republican in Name Only." It is the new invective to hurl at fellow Republicans with whom you disagree. Republicans are real good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. One way they do that is by driving from their midst anyone who does not agree with them 100% of the time on all points. Holier-than-thou "real" Republicans want to purge the Party of all but the pure in heart. Their favorite sport is the circular firing squad.

Some famous Rinos are William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, both Bushs, John McCain, George Will, and David Brooks. There are a lot of Rinos. Our own Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker are Rinos.

There are only a few "Real" Republicans and they include Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter. We can't be sure about Glen Beck.

I must be a Rino; I get told I am a lot. I generally want to enlarge the Party, not shrink it. I tend to think that if someone agrees with me 51% of the time, I want us to be on the same side. Like Ronald Reagan, I am a "big tent" kind of Republican. That makes me a Rino.

Below is a list to use to determine if you are a Rinos.

  • If you supported the Party’s presidential candidate in 2008, you might be a Rino.
  • If you supported the START treaty because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to Kingdom Come and because the President committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan that would make sure that our weapons work and because it allows for inspection of Russian warheads and because our military leaders say it does nothing to interfere with the development of our missile defense system and because the last six Republican Secretaries of State supported it, you might be a Rino.
  •  If you think that maybe-just maybe, there could be something to this global warming theory and if you have any doubts that all of the scientist who endorse it are part of a grand liberal conspiracy, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think that at some point we need to pass some sort of legislation (similar to that proposed by George W. Bush), that will document the illegal immigrants who are in this country and allow an earned path to citizenship for some of them (after paying back taxes and a penalty), and work permits for some others, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think that Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii and is an American citizen, you might be a Rino.
  •  If you have any doubts that Barack Obama is a Muslim, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think that the Muslim faith, practiced by 1.2 to 1.57 billion people or about 20% of the world’s population, is really a religion, then you might be a Rino.
  • If you think the First Amendment is just as important as the Second or the Tenth, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think the First Amendment applies to followers of the Muslim faith and they have the right to build a house of worship in Murfressboro, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think it is OK for foreigners to own property in America and you are not absolutely outraged that some illegal immigrants have Visa cards and bank accounts and can get loans and you do not think it wise to take power away from the private sector and transfer that power to the government to decide who can get loans and visa cards and bank accounts, then you might be a Rino.
  • If you agree with the late William F. Buckley and religious right leader Pat Robertson that we should decriminalize marijuana, you might be a Rino.
  • If you do not think “compromise” is a dirty word, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think “pragmatism” is a virtue, you might be a Rino.
  • If you think “electability” should be a consideration in choosing your party’s candidates, you might be a Rino.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sunday, December 26, 2010

    Holy Smoke! Pat Robertson advocates decriminalization of Marijuana

    The Reverend Pat Robertson,  influential Christian right leader, 1988 Republican candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, and founder and president of the Christian Broadcasting Network has been known to say some controversial and outrageous things, such as that the earthquake disaster in Haiti is a result of Haiti's long ago deal with the devil and that hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for America's abortion policy. Now, he is creating controversy by talking sense.

    'We're locking up people that take a couple of puffs of marijuana and the next thing they know they've got 10 years. They've got mandatory sentences and these judges just ... throw up their hands and say there's nothing we can do," said Robertson recently.

    "We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of them," Robertson added. "I'm not exactly for the use of drugs. Don't get me wrong. But I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people. They go into prison as youths and they come out as hardened criminals, and that's not a good thing." (link)

    Wow, what has he been smoking? God bless Pat Robertson.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Saturday, December 25, 2010

    More Christmas 'toons

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Merry Christmas

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Friday, December 24, 2010

    Christmas 'toons

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Thursday, December 23, 2010

    Corker Outlines Support for New START Treaty

    Says It Should Be Called 'Nuclear Modernization and Missile Defense Act of 2010'

    WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today voted in favor of ratification of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty with Russia. The treaty was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 71 to 26.

    "My only concern in consideration of this treaty has been the safety and security of the American people," said Corker. "In the final analysis, I am pleased to support a treaty that continues the legacy of President Reagan who signed the first nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia in 1987. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen says the treaty is vital to U.S. national security; I agree and am proud that as a result of ratification we have been successful in securing commitments from the administration on modernization of our nuclear arsenal and support of our missile defense programs, two things that would not have happened otherwise. In fact, thanks in part to the contributions my staff and I have been able to make, the New START treaty could easily be called the 'Nuclear Modernization and Missile Defense Act of 2010.'

    "Like many of my colleagues and my constituents, I approached the original New START language with serious reservations. Over the past six months, I have used my position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to address those concerns. Let me outline the key issues:

    "First, when START expired last year we lost our ability to know what is happening with Russia's nuclear arsenal. With New START's ratification we will once again have well-trained inspection teams - 'boots on the ground' - as a check on Russia, an exercise President Reagan called, 'Trust, but verify.' Additionally, I think many Americans will be glad to know the resolution of ratification states that New START only remains in the interest of the U.S. so long as Russia is in compliance with all components of the treaty, and that includes the ability of the U.S. to conduct verification activities. Either country may withdraw from the treaty at any time if they deem their national security interests are compromised.

    "Second, I saw this entire process as an opportunity to push for long overdue investments in modernization of our existing nuclear arsenal and made clear I could not support the treaty's ratification without it. The U.S. is currently the only nuclear weapons country not adequately investing in modernization. If we are going to take weapons out of deployed status, I think most Americans would like to know the arms we do have will work and that our hedge of an additional 3,500 weapons is safe while in storage. I visited several of the nation's nuclear facilities around the country and if Americans had witnessed, as I did, the deteriorating state of our nuclear infrastructure and weapons, they would recognize the urgency to maintain them.

    "Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and I have worked to ensure there are appropriate commitments from the administration and Senate appropriators to fully invest in the rehabilitation of the warheads and their components. I applaud and I thank Sen. Kyl for his vision on modernization and his doggedness in helping get the needed commitments in place. To date, we have received appropriate commitments to fully fund modernization and an update to the 10-year modernization plan for the nuclear weapons complex. In a letter to Senate appropriators dated December 20, 2010, the president confirmed that he would request funding levels outlined in the updated modernization plan. I believe these commitments accommodate current and future needs and are in line with our national security obligations.

    "Third, the president sent a letter to Congress stating his commitment to the development and deployment of a robust U.S. missile defense system. I introduced an amendment codifying the key components of the letter and requiring that the president, prior to ratification of the treaty, certify to the Senate that our missile defense systems will continue to be developed, improved and deployed and communicate to Russia that continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems do not threaten the strategic balance with Russia and consequently do not constitute a basis to withdraw from the treaty. Additionally, my amendment added a statement of understanding that the preamble to the New START treaty does not in any way impose a legal obligation to the U.S. with regard to our missile defense systems. This amendment passed in the Senate and was included in the final resolution of ratification."

    As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker has conducted a thorough review of the treaty and its implications for national security, including scores of meetings, briefings and phone calls, and visits to several of the nation's nuclear facilities where the weapons work takes place.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sen. Alexander statement on New START Treaty

    Floor Statement by Senator Lamar Alexander

    I will vote to ratify the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia, because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to Kingdom Come and because the President has committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work.   I will vote for the Treaty because it allows for inspection of Russian warheads and because our military leaders say it does nothing to interfere with the development of our missile defense system.  I will vote for the Treaty because the last six Republican Secretaries of State support it. In short, I am convinced that Americans are safer and more secure with the New Start Treaty than without it.    

    Last week I joined Senators Inouye, Cochran, and Feinstein in a letter to the President, stating that we will vote to ratify the treaty and to appropriate funds to modernize our outdated nuclear weapons facilities and that he request those funds in his budgets.  Last night, I received a response from the President saying he would do so.

    I ask unanimous consent to include both letters in the record.

    Why are these two necessarily linked—the Treaty and the plan for nuclear weapons modernization?  The answer is that if we are going to reduce our number of warheads, we want to make sure that we are not left with what amounts to a collection of wet matches.

    Defense Secretary Gates said: “There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”

    In a November 24 statement, Senator Kyl and Senator Corker said they “could not support reductions in U.S. nuclear forces unless there is adequate attention to modernizing those forces and the infrastructure that supports them.”

    Senators Kyl and Corker deserve credit for untiring efforts to fund properly nuclear modernization.  President Obama deserves credit for updating the nuclear modernization plan in such a significant way.

    I have reviewed that so-called “1251 plan,” completed November 17, which calls for spending $85 billion over the next ten years. I have visited our outdated nuclear weapons facilities.   I am convinced that the plan’s implementation will make giant steps toward modernization of those facilities so that we—and our allies and adversaries—can be assured that the weapons will work if needed.

    The President’s statement that he will ask for these funds and the support of senior members of the Appropriations Committee means that the plan is more likely to become a reality.  The President agrees that in tight budgets these funds should be considered as defense spending.

    I ask consent to include in the record a summary of the appropriations recommended by the plan mandated by section 1251 of the 2010 Defense Authorization bill.

    I will offer an amendment to the resolution of ratification to require an annual update of the 1251 report which the president’s letter says he will do. 

    Under the terms of the Treaty the United States may have 1550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, each one up to 30 times more powerful than the one used at Hiroshima to end World War II.

    The U.S. also will gain valuable data, including through inspection operations, that should provide a treasure trove of intelligence about Russian activities that we would not have without the Treaty - and that we have not had since the START Treaty expired on December 9, 2009.

    Over the weekend, the President sent a letter to the Senate reaffirming “the continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems.” There is nothing within the Treaty itself that would hamper the development or deployment of missile defense.  Our military and intelligence leaders all have said that.

    Obviously, something could happen down the road involving differences over missile defense systems that could require either country to withdraw from the treaty. That is any sovereign country's right with any treaty.  In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because of our desire to pursue missile defenses to protect us from an attack by a rogue state.

    I ask consent to include in the record the President’s letter on missile defense.

    Ratifying this treaty would extend the policies of Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, as well as Democratic presidents.

    I ask unanimous consent to include in the record the statements of six Republican secretaries of state, all of whom support it.

    Mr. President, I will vote to ratify this treaty, but the vote we are about to have today is on whether to end debate.  The majority’s decision to jam through other matters during this lame duck session has poisoned the well, driven away Republican votes and jeopardized ratification of this important agreement. 

    Nevertheless, this Treaty was presented to the Senate on May 13.  After 12 hearings in two committees and many briefings, the Foreign Relations Committee reported the Treaty to the Senate on September 16 in a bipartisan vote of 14 to 4.  For several months there have been intense negotiations to develop a realistic plan and the funding for nuclear modernization.  That updated plan was reported on November 17.  The Senate voted to proceed to the Treaty last Wednesday.  I voted no, because I thought there should be still more time allowed for amendment and debate.

    But, despite the flawed process, I believe that the Treaty and the nuclear modernization plan make our country safer and more secure.  It will allow us to resume inspection and verification of disarmament of nuclear weapons in Russia.   The head of our missile defense system says the treaty will not hamper our missile development program—and if it does, we can withdraw from the Treaty.  All six former Republican Secretaries of State support it.

    Therefore, I will vote to ratify the New START Treaty and during the next several years vote to fund the nuclear modernization plan.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Wednesday, December 22, 2010

    Five Former top Republican U.S. diplomats urge support for START

    By David Morgan, WASHINGTON , Wed Dec 1, 2010 11:57pm EST

    Former secretaries of state for five Republican presidents urged Senate Republicans to back the New START nuclear treaty with Russia, suggesting failure to do so could affect Moscow's role on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.
    In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post on Thursday, top diplomats in Republican administrations from Richard Nixon's to George W. Bush's called on senators to set aside their domestic partisanship and ratify the treaty in U.S. national interests.

    "The most important thing is to have bipartisan support for the treaty, as previous nuclear arms treaties did," said authors Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell.(link)

    My Comment
    Who you gonna' trust?  I may be a dreaded "RINO." for supporting the START treaty and I guess I should assume the newly active tea party participants know best, but for some reason I tend to trust the last Secretary of States of Republican Presidents. I guess all of those Republican Presidents and their Secretary of State were RINO too and so are our own two Republican Senators. If supporting START makes me a RINO, I am in good company.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Tennessee Center for Policy Research Announces "Lump of Coal Award" Winner

    NASHVILLE – The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), the state's free market think tank, today announced the Roane County Economic Development Foundation as the recipient of its “2010 Lump of Coal Award.”

    TCPR awards this dubious distinction annually to the person or group in Tennessee who, more than any other over the past year, acted as a Grinch to Tennesseans by bah-humbugging the principles of liberty and limited government.

    The Roane County Economic Development Foundation receives the sixth annual badge of disgrace for mismanaging millions of dollars in the wake of a 2008 coal ash spill. The spill occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston-area coal plant in December 2008, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of ash on to 300 acres of nearby land.

    TVA officials offered $43 million in federal money to local government officials—all designed to help the community recover from the disaster. Those government officials, along with TVA representatives, organized themselves into the Roane County Economic Development Foundation and distributed the money as they saw fit.

    Unfortunately, local property owners harmed by the spill got scrooged. The foundation dispersed the money to its members’ favorite political pet projects, none of which were affected by the spill. For instance, the foundation doled out $1.7 million to a dilapidated theater and $200,000 to a public library, both several miles from the ash spill.

    “The holiday season is all about giving, but as the Roane County Economic Development Foundation has proven, this year greed is government’s motto,” said TCPR President Justin Owen. “At least the local property owners impacted by the ash spill will have a fancy new theater and library to visit when they take a break from cleaning up the mess TVA left behind.”

    TCPR Director of Government Accountability Chris Butler documented the story, along with reaction from local residents when they found out about the foundation’s naughty actions. The entire story can be read at:

    “Given that they dumped coal on local residents and refused to clean it up, it’s ironic yet fitting that the Roane County Economic Development Foundation should win this award,” noted Owen. “We don’t even need to send the lump of coal…there is plenty of it left on the property of nearby homeowners.”

    TCPR is an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization committed to providing free market solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee. Through research, advocacy, and investigative reporting, TCPR advances ideas grounded in the principles of free markets, individual liberty, and limited government.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Tuesday, December 21, 2010

    Corker Will Support START Treaty -- White House Has Votes To Ratify

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) announced on the Senate floor this afternoon that he will support the new START nuclear arms treaty, saying that "there's nothing that I think most of us care about more than our country being secure." (link)

    My Comment: Pass the Treaty.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Alexander Supports New START Treaty

    “It leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to Kingdom Come.” – Lamar Alexander

    “The president has committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan to make sure these weapons work. The Treaty allows for inspection of Russian warheads. Our military leaders say it does nothing to interfere with development of our missile defense system. The last six Republican secretaries of state support the Treaty.” – Lamar Alexander

    WASHINGTON,Deceber 21 – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today said he would vote to ratify the New START Treaty between the U.S. and Russia, saying, “Americans are safer and more secure with the Treaty than without it.”

    This week Alexander and three other senators sent a letter to President Obama asking that the president, first, include funding for nuclear modernization in his budget requests to Congress. Yesterday the president sent a letter of agreement in response.

    In remarks on the Senate floor this morning, Alexander said:

    “I have reviewed the plan that calls for spending $85 billion over the next ten years on nuclear modernization. I have visited our outdated nuclear weapons facilities. I am convinced that the plan’s implementation will make giant steps toward modernization of those facilities so that we – and our allies and adversaries – can be assured that the weapons will work if needed. The president’s statement that he will ask for these funds and the support of senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee means that the plan is more likely to become a reality. This will make sure the United States is not left with a collection of wet matches.”

    Alexander said that under the terms of the Treaty, the United States:

    • will have up to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, “each one up to 30 times more powerful than the one used at Hiroshima to end World War II”; and
    • will gain valuable data, including through inspection operations “that should provide a treasure trove of intelligence about Russian activities that we would not have without the treaty – and that we have not had since the START treaty expired on December 9, 2009.”
    Alexander continued: “Over the weekend the president sent a letter to the Senate reaffirming ‘the continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems …’ There is nothing within the Treaty itself that would hamper the development or deployment of our missile defense. Our military and intelligence leaders all have said that. Obviously, something could happen down the road, for example, involving differences between Russia and the United States over missile-defense systems that could require either country to withdraw from the treaty. That is any sovereign country's right with any treaty. In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because of our desire to pursue missile defenses to protect us from an attack by a rogue state.”

    This week’s letter to the president was signed by Senators Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Appropriations Committee, and also by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Alexander, who are members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, which funds nuclear weapons modernization through its annual appropriations bills.

    My Comment
    I know that many conservatives will be disappointed in Alexander for his stand on this issue. I am going to give Alexander the benefit of the doubt and assume he is doing the right thing.
    I am not an expert on arms control and I am sure that few of those who are trying to stop this treaty are experts either, but I try to stay informed and you have to trust someone. I trust Senator Alexander and the process. This treaty is part of a process that began in 1991 and the treaty passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 14-4 and those voting in favor in committee included Republicans  Richard Lugar, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson. The Senate has had months to study this Treaty.  I support arms reduction and a continuation of the START Treaty process. It is worth remembering that the first START was an initiative of Ronald Reagan. Supporting arms reduction is not a liberal plot to weaken the United States. START has made the world a safer place.
    Republican critics of this treaty have gained a concession from the President to support modernization of our nuclear arsenal. We should celebrate this victory and pass the treaty.  I hope that those who are opposing the treaty are opposing it due to an honest evaluation of the merits of the treaty and are not simply wanting to deny President Obama a foreign policy victory. This issue is too important to be used to play politics.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Monday, December 20, 2010

    David Hall’s Campaign Report still does not add up

    "1. Column B figures for the Summary and Detailed Summary Page information should equal the sum of the Column B figures on your previous report and the Column A figures on this report minus the Column C figures.
    Please file an amendment to your report to conect the Column B discrepancies for Lines 6(a), 6(c), 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), ll(a)(iii), 11(c), 11(d), 11(e), 13(a), 13(c), 14, 15, 16, 17, 19(a), 19(c), 22 and all subsequent
    report(s) that may be affected by this conection. Note that Column B should reflect only the election cycle-to-date totals. (2 U.S.C. § 434(b))" (link)

    Does H & R Block file campaign finance reports?

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sunday, December 19, 2010

    Matt Nemeth Reports from West Nashville Summit with Ken Marrerro

    Hello All and Merry Christmas!

    Yesterday we had a great meeting out at the Shoney's on White Bridge.  Thank you to all who attended and welcome to those who were new!

    Ken Marrero is an excellent speaker and we are luckily to have him reside here in middle Tennessee.  He beams of passion, kindness and knowledge while he is speaking.  His idea of "Second-Hand Liberty" is one that drove me to think more about how we should approach government.  As Ken says, we created the government to preserve liberty but now find ourselves almost begging them to maintain that job.  Our liberties should never be begged for.

    During his speech Ken mentioned Patrick Henry's address regarding his famous "give me liberty" speech.  When I got home I looked up the entire speech and was amazed that I had never read it.  If you have never read it, please follow this link to do so:

    Also, if you want to keep up with Ken's blog, you can do so through this link:  Believe me, you will not be disappointed.

    Look for updates regarding next month's breakfast and, as always, let me know if you have any ideas for speakers!

    Have a great holiday!
    Matt Nemeth

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Saturday, December 18, 2010

    Know Your Bible; Know Your Qur'an

    There are a lot of people wanting me to read the Qur'an. Every time I post something suggesting that not all Muslim are terrorist or that the First Amendment also applies to followers of the Muslim faith or that there really are some secular Muslims, people send me numerous verses from the Qur'an and suggest I read the Qur'an.

    I have never read the Qur'an. I have tried. I checked it out of the library one time and read parts of it and skimmed it but it was too boring to read it all. So, I don't know the Qur'an. However, I am pretty familiar with the Bible. I have read or had read to me the Bible from cover to cover twice and have read the Bible at random for many years although I don't read it much anymore.

    I am often surprised at how little most people know about the Bible. They may have been attending church their whole life and still not know much Bible. There are some passages in the Bible that are almost never read from the pulpit.
    One of the things I noticed about the verses people send me from the Qur'an is that a lot of them sound very familiar to Bible verses.

    I thought it might be fun to see if people can pick from a collection of verses those that are from the Qur'an and which are from the Bible. If this was a game show we could call it, "Know Your Bible; Know Your Qur'an."

    Some of the verses are a give-away, because they use the term "Allah" or have other obvious clues but many of them are hard to determine. Take the following quiz and see how many you can get correct. The Answers are at the end. Let me know your score.

    Know your Bible; Know your Qur'an

    Charging interest/usury

    (A) Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.

    (B) If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest.

    Murder, rape, and pillage

    (C) So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
    The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
    Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"
    So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

    (D) As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


    (E) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

    (F) And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands as prisoners of war . . .


    (G) If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

    (H) Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: My Lord! Bestow on them thy Mercy even as they cherished me in childhood.

    (I) Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee,

    Kill your enemies

    (J) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    (K) Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels with the message: "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."

    Stone to death

    (L) If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

    (M) "If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)
    "But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..."


    (N) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    (O) Lot said to his people, "You commit such an abomination; no one
    in the world has done it before! "You practice sex with the men,
    instead of the women. Indeed, you are a transgressing people."

    (P) "Do you have sex with the males, of all the people? "You forsake
    the wives that your Lord has created for you! Indeed, you are
    transgressing people."

    Women and modesty

    (Q) Do not be soft in your speech in a way that may excite men to feel an eager desire for you or lust after you, lest in whose heart is malice and is devoid of soundness and rectitude should be excited to feel a desire for you or lust after you.
    Do not show or display fineries or ornaments or beauties of your form or countenance that may excite a man’s lust

    (R) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.

    Women to be submissive to men

    (S) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    Sex Slaves

    (T) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.


    (U) "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".

    (V) When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you.


    (W) “You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die,

    (X) Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.

    (Y) "O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."


    (Z) And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in peace and tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect"

    (AA) However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

    Acts of compassion

    (BB) "And what will explain to you what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a slave from bondage; or the giving of food in a day of famine to an orphan relative, or to a needy in distress. Then will he be of those who believe, enjoin fortitude and encourage kindness and compassion."
    Bible: B, C, D, E, G, I, J, L, M, N, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, AA,
    Qur'an: A, F, H, K, O, P, Q, Y, Z, BB
    How many did you get right?

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Corker: Cap Federal Spending

    Corker Votes to Extend Existing Tax Rates, Introduces Amendment to Cap Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP

    December 15 2010

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has offered a bipartisan amendment to the tax cut package that would establish a binding federal spending cap tied to the country’s economic output, instilling fiscal discipline and smaller government while incentivizing lawmakers to pass pro-growth policies. Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., is the lead Democrat sponsor of the amendment.

    “This has been a tough vote for me. I spent a lot of time weighing the pros and cons, but at the end of the day I'm supporting the tax package because the most important short-term issue our country faces is the economy. Allowing these income tax rates to expire would be devastating to our fragile economy,” said Corker. “And while this legislation is important for stabilizing the economy and creating certainty for businesses and our citizens, over the long-term nothing is more important than acting quickly to get spending under control and reduce our deficit.

    “To that end, Senator McCaskill and I have offered an amendment to cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP, a move that would instill fiscal discipline and smaller government while incentivizing lawmakers to pass pro-growth policies. This bipartisan amendment won’t be debated or voted on today, but hopefully it and other efforts will lay down a marker and build momentum in the new Congress for tangible, meaningful action to get government spending under control prior to a vote on the debt ceiling.”

    In 2009 the federal government spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in, borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar. By 2030, on the current trajectory, U.S. debt will reach 146 percent of GDP, far exceeding what economists of every persuasion deem as sustainable. Over the past 40 years, federal spending has averaged 20.6 percent of GDP, and revenue has averaged 18 percent. Today, spending is 23.8 percent of GDP, and revenue is 14.9 percent of GDP.

    The Corker-McCaskill amendment would limit all federal spending to a percentage of GDP. Specifically, the amendment would:

    - Eliminate the “off-budget” distinction for certain programs, allowing for a complete and accurate assessment of federal outlays and future obligations, and

    - Put in place a 10-year glide path to bring spending down to the historical average, 20.6 percent of GDP.

    Should Congress violate the binding cap, the House and Senate would have 45 days to offset the increase in spending. Failure to offset the spending increase would trigger corresponding, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget. In an emergency, as defined in the statute and determined by a two-thirds vote in both bodies, Congress could authorize – and be held accountable by voting for – spending in excess of the cap for that year.

    The Corker-McCaskill amendment is cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

    “We face many challenges as a country, but after four years in Washington and a lifetime in business, I believe unsustainable spending habits and fiscal insolvency pose the greatest threat to our economic stability, freedom, way of life and future as a nation,” said Corker. “We are in real danger of becoming the first generation of Americans to leave our country in worse shape than we found it. The time to act is now.” 

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Friday, December 17, 2010

    Murfreesboro Mosque Circus returns!

    All those God-fearing, Constitution-waving enemies of the First Amendment can rejoice! The Murfreesboro Mosque Circus is coming back to town! They get another opportunity to try to prove that the religion practiced by one and a half billion people, about a quarter of the earth's population, is not really a religion. They will get another opportunity to waste the money of the taxpayers of Rutherford County. They can further tarnish the image of Tennessee. They can cancel out all the effort and money spend to attract businesses to Tennessee. If they are lucky they may create enough interest to have another movie made about Tennessee. "The Murfressboro Mosque Circus" may be the sequel to "Inherit the Wind." The Circus is back in town! Read all about it.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    West Nashville Eggs and Bacon Summit with Special Guest Ken Marrero

    Rise and Shine
    for the 
    West Nashville Eggs and Bacon Summit
    with Special Guest
    Ken Marrero

    Topic: "Second Hand Liberty"

    Ken is a political activist who has blogged as Blue Collar Muse for almost 4 years. While his work has impact across the USA, Ken is a proud resident of Middle Tennessee. He is the founder of the Tennessee ConserVOLiance, a state wide alliance of online, right-of-center activists and a popular informative and inspirational speaker for Conservative and Liberty loving groups across the country.

    365 White Bridge Pike, Nashville
    map link
    Saturday, December 18th
    Fellowship, Dutch Treat Breakfast 8:30 AM, meeting 9:00 AM
    Moderator: Matt Nemeth

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Merry Christmas

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Monday, December 13, 2010

    Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional!

    "In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions."(link)

    My Comment: Fantastic! Hooray! This is the third district court to rule on the constitutionality of the law. The other two district courts upheld the law. I would assume this means the law is headed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately the judge did not block implementation of the law. I don't know if Obamacare will eventually be ruled unconstitutional or not but it should be. If the goverment can mandate that you pruchase a particular product then it can mandate anything.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sunday, December 12, 2010

    Join the discussion: In Defense of Freedom by Frank S. Meyer

    I would like to invite you to join  a new book discussion group that I attend. The group is called "Conservative Fusion" and meets at  the Shoneys at 407 Thompson Ln, at 2PM on a  Saturday. This group focuses on books of interest to conservatives and libertarians and will feature both classics and contemporary works.  The group is not an activist group but rather a group that meets to discuss great books and ideas. The last time we met we discussed F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom.

    I had not read The Road to Serfdom since I was in my twenties. It was a pleasure to reread a book that was important to the formulation of my believes and then discuss it with other people. I am now rereading another important book that I have not read since my youth and am enjoying it. The next meeting will be January 11, 2011. There is plenty of time to purchase a copy of the book.

    Follow this link to RSVP: Conservative Fusion Meetup.

    Below is the Meetup announcement: 

    We will discuss In Defense of Freedom by Frank S. Meyer (Here at Amazon). The title is the source of our Meetup group's name, Conservative Fusion, Meyer's term "fusionism" an attempt to bring together conservatism's traditionalism and libertarianism. Hopefully this will give everyone time to read it or at least look through it. Also looking forward to other ideas both as to subject matter and other meeting times/venues. I hope we can have more folks at this one and look forward to seeing everyone there.
    Some questions for consideration:
    --traditionalism vs libertarianism
    --modern fusionism
    --examples of fusionism
    --what were Meyer's fusionist arguments?
    --modern challenges and philosophical debates within the conservative/conservative intellectual movement
    --policy contributions of fusionism
    --Constitution: elements of traditionalism, libertarianism, fusionism

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Saturday, December 11, 2010

    Senator Jim DeMint: Why I Oppose the Tax Deal

    From Senator Jim DeMint: Why I Oppose the Tax Deal

    Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

    First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

    But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

    For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

    The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

    The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

    Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.

    The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

    I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

    Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

    I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

    Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

    My Comment
    I am with Senator DeMint. This bill should not pass. It is time for Republicans to stand firm on cutting spending. This is old fashioned vote buying and deal making. The deficit is going to bankrupt this nation if we do not get serious about cutting spending and growing the economy.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol

    The recent tax cut deal worked out between Republicans and the White House is bloated with wasteful spending, the worst of which is $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports. To the $45 billion already wasted on ethanol, they are going to add another $5 billion.

    This is insanity! Almost everyone agrees that ethanol has been a failure. Corn for ethanol competing with corn for food has led to higher corn prices and this has led to hunger in the third world. The increase in corn production has led to an increase in pollutant run-offs which has created a large dead area in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It takes almost as much energy to produce a unit of ethanol energy as the energy produced. And, corn-based ethanol may be a greater contributor to global warming than oil. Corn-based ethanol is an inefficient source of fuel and would not exist without government subsidies and protectionism.

    Even Al Gore has come out and admitted ethanol was a mistake and he has said the only reason he supported it as a senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination was to gain the support of the Tennessee and Iowa farmers.

    One of the leading proponents of ethanol is Iowa's Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. I am not optimistic the government can cut spending.Unless Republicans take a principled stand for fiscal sanity we are doomed. As of yet, I don't see it happening.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Friday, December 10, 2010

    Nacny Pelosi reacts to ......

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Wednesday, December 08, 2010

    'Prince of Pork' to be Chief Budget Cutter

    This is something else from the "I-ain't-believing-this" department.

    Hal Rogers, a thirty-year veteran of Congress, who has brought so much pork home to his district that he has earned the title "Prince of Pork" and whose hometown of Somerset, Kentucky is called "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood" due to all the projects he has had funded there, is going to be Chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

    "This fiscal year, Rogers sponsored or co-sponsored 50 earmarks totaling $93.4 million, ranking 10th out of the 435 representatives, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that tracks money in politics." (link)

    According to Taxpayers for Common Sense he had the fourth most earmarks of any Member of Congress last year. Citizens Against Government Waste listed him as one of its “Oinkers of the Year.”

    He has sponsored projects that  give federal funding to his daughter's nonprofit organization, which promotes overseas wildlife protection for cheetahs. Other projects include $17 million in federal dollars for a small  airport that has so little traffic that the last commercial airline pulled out in February.

    This is the guy that the Republicans are going to put in charge of ending wasteful spending? Talk about the Fox guarding the hen house. This is an outrage.

    Tell me again why we kicked out Democrats and put Republicans in charge. Did Republicans think we were voting for more of the same? I am still disgruntled.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Feds to stop sale of unregulated cupcakes

    By MARY CLARE JALONICK, The Associated Press, 12/3/2010

    WASHINGTON — Don't touch my brownies!

    A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.(link)

    My Comment

    Can anyone say "nanny state?" It seems to be that whether or not to allow cupcake sales at school should be dealt with at the school level or at the school board level. Do we really need this kind of micromanagement from Washington? Are we not capable of self governance?  What is next? Will they regulate your backyard garden?

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Madison Eggs and Bacon Summit for Dec. 11 is cancelled.

    The previously scheduled meeting for Saturday December 11 at the Madison Piccadilly has been canceled.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sunday, December 05, 2010

    Quanititative easing explained

    I am posting this for it's entertainment value. I don't know how accurate it is but it is entertaining. I know a lot of stuff but I admit I am not an expert on monetary policy or the Federal Reserve. (Hey, I try, but I can't be an expert on everything.) When I heard about the Feds' inflating of the money supply, called "quantitative easing," I did not find it reassuring. Creating a lot of money out of thin air does not sound too smart to me, but what do I know. This video explains it. Now, I understand it. Enjoy.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Scrap the Minimum Wage

    By Art Carden, Forbes Magazine, September 13, 2010

    Raising hourly wages seemed like a good idea, but it has only destroyed jobs.

    Do you want to get serious about expanding employment? Then it's time to realize that spending on jobs programs is the wrong approach. It would be much better to eliminate hurdles for people who want to find work. One of those hurdles is the minimum wage.

    The effect of a minimum wage is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences: Minimum wages create unemployment.

    Eliminating the minimum wage would send a powerful and positive economic message. It would show investors, entrepreneurs and employees that policymakers appreciate the laws of supply and demand--and that prosperity comes from harnessing production, not redistributing wealth.(link)

    My Comment

    This article explains how the minimum wage hurts young people and minorities most of all and shows how government stimulus spending simply reshuffles resources and creates temporary increases in employment in some sectors at the expense of other sectors.

    It is time for a Republican leader to step up and advocated the things we know to be true. With employment at 9.8% and unemployment insurance needing to be extended again beyond the current 92 weeks, it is time for someone to advocate getting government out of the way and letting the market work.

    If it were up to me, I would like to see the minimum wage completely eliminated but know that that is not realistic. However, it Republicans would show the same devotion to rolling back the minimum wage as they do expanding the Bush era tax cuts, it may be possible to negotiate a modest roll back to perhaps the 2007 level of $5.85. I suspect that a roll back of the minimum wage is at least as important to economic growth as expanding the tax cuts. It may be even more important. If Republican could not get an across the board roll back, they could try for a roll back in those states with greater than average rates of unemployment.
    If unemployment dropped in those states, that would show the wisdom of the rollback. 
    Will no politician step forward and advocate this? 

    It is time to roll back the minimum wage and let people go to work.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Saturday, December 04, 2010

    Christine O'Donnell likes Hillary Clinton for President in 2012

    What?? This is from the I-ain't-believing-this Department.

    On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday, Christine O'Donnell threw her support to an unexpected - and seemingly uninterested - potential 2012 presidential candidate: Hillary Clinton.
    "I hope she runs for President," O'Donnell told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, adding that she would even consider becoming a Democrat in order to have the opportunity to vote for her.(link)

    Cristy O'Donnell who was the darling of the Tea Party crowd, Cristy O'Donnell of the "I am not a witch" commercial, Cristy O'Donnell who lacked credentials to be elected, is really a RINO. (I think that is the first time I have ever said someone was a RINO.)

    As Mark Rogers said about this on his Facebook post, "So the Wicked not-a-witch of Delaware would consider switching parties and voting for Hillary Clinton for President. All of you apologists for that dim bulb need to beat yourselves with whips and make other acts of penitence. That she got so many votes suggests there isn't much 'aware' in Delaware."

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Friday, December 03, 2010

    The unemployment rate is up! It is time to cut the minimum wage.

    The unemployment rate edged up to 9.8 percent in November. It went up,  not down. Things are not getting better. These unemployment numbers are not acceptable and Congress needs to take bold action to put people back to work. Instead of taking action to put people back to work however, the Democrats keep trying to raise taxes. Implementing record tax hikes as unemployment rises is just dumb. To stop the unemployment rate from rising higher, Congress should extend all of the Bush era tax cuts for starters. The second thing Congress needs to do it cut the minimum wage.

    The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which for a forty-hour work week is $290, about the same as a week of unemployment benefit. Critics will argue that one cannot support a family on $290 a week, and that is true.  However if one is on unemployment benefits one cannot support a family on $290 a week either. As Congress debates extending unemployment beyond the current 99 weeks of benefits, it should consider any extension tied to a reduction in the minimum wage.

    There are people who could be put to work at $5.25 an hour who cannot be put to work at $7.25 an hour. At a lower wage rate, an employer may be willing to invest in training of a low-skilled worker whereas they may not be able to afford to do so at a higher rate of pay.  An employer considering outsourcing jobs overseas may not have to so if he could hire people to do the same work at less than $7.25 an hour  here in America. An employer considering reducing labor cost by automating jobs, may choose to not invest in labor-saving technology if labor rates were lower. An employer faced with the choice of laying off some workers or keeping everyone employed but cutting wages, is limited in cutting wages when the lowest wage possible is $7.25.

    A low wage does not have to be the maximum one ever earns, but a low wage is often the first rung on the latter. A minimum wage of $7.25 makes that first rung out of reach for many people. Not everyone who works for minimum wage is supporting a family on that wage. Many families have two wage earners. A second wage earner earning a modest minimum wage, may keep a family from losing their home.  Many of the people who work for minimum wage are young adults still living at home. Working for less than $7.25 is better than not working at all.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Tuesday, November 30, 2010

    A move is afoot to close the primaries in Tennessee!

    A move is afoot to close the primaries in Tennessee and I wholeheartedly support this move.

    I admit that I have often voted in the Democratic Primary, usually the Davidson County primary but sometimes the State primary as well. Most of the time, there is not even a Davidson County Republican County primary and if one wants a voice in who holds the Courthouse seats, one has to vote in the Democratic Primary. When I have voted in the Democratic Primary, I have usually voted for the most conservative Democrat. I suspect there are some closet Republicans holding office as Democrats in Nashville. 

    The effect of Republicans like myself voting in the Democratic primary is that by doing so we fail to build a Republican Party. Davidson County is a one-party town and unless primaries are closed it is likely to stay a one-party town. In much of East Tennessee the situation is reversed and many Democrats vote in Republican primaries. Also, if one Party's campaign is already pretty much a sure thing and the outcome can easily be predicted, members of that party are tempted to vote in the primary of the opposition Party where there is a real contest.

    Republicans should not be allowed to choose the Democratic Party's nominee and Democrats should not be allowed to choose the Republican nominee. Moderates and independents will not like this move but anyone who believes the Parties should represent a set of clear values and present the public a clear choice should support it. 

    Below is the facebook announcement of this move and a copy of the proposed resolution. Mark Winslow is a member of the Republican Party State Executive Committee. 

    If you are a Republican and support the idea of closed primaries please contact your member of the State Executive Committee and urge them to support this resolution.

    Standing Up for Tennessee Republicans

    bMark Winslow on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 6:24am
    On Saturday our Tennessee Republican Party Executive Committee will meet in Nashville. At the meeting, a group of us will present the following resolution adopting the official position that our state should move to a system of registration by party and should structure our primaries so the political parties cannot interfere in other parties' primary elections and county party organization. Republicans deserve the opportunity to conduct our primaries free of influence from others and with the belief that we are selecting candidates who truly believe in the principles of limited conservative government. This is merely a long overdue first step and the final decision rests with the legislature and the new governor. But Republicans should know that their representatives at the Tennessee Republican Party are looking out for their best interests.

    WHEREAS Tennesseans, on November 2, 2010, clearly and resoundingly affirmed their desire that conservative values are the guiding principles they wish to determine the future direction of our state.

    WHEREAS the vote on November 2 completed a sixteen year transformation of Republicans to majority status in Tennessee.

    WHEREAS the clearly voiced positions of Tennessee Republicans in favor of sound fiscal practices, respect for the value of human life, defense of our Second Amendment rights and opposition to a state income tax are the view of the majority of Tennesseans.

    WHEREAS Tennessee law now permits participation in Republican primaries by those who do not act in the best interest of our party and the Republicans we represent.

    WHEREAS the diminished status of the Democrat Party in Tennessee has lead to increased instances of coordinated crossover voting in Republican primaries with intent to influence Republican elections.

    WHEREAS the bylaws of the Tennessee Republican Party are vague on the ability of non-Republicans to participate and influence the election of county party officers and committees.

    WHEREAS a growing majority status for Republicans has resulted in increased participation and influence over county Republican conventions and caucuses by non-Republicans.

    WHEREAS legislation to require voter registration in Tennessee has been proposed for the past three sessions of the General Assembly without moving to a vote of the full House and Senate.

    WHEREAS it is the responsibility of the State Executive Committee to protect and promote participation in county party elections and Republican primaries by those who believe in the principles of the Republican Party.

    NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The State Executive Committee of the Tennessee Republican Party, in our capacity as the Republican State Primary Board, that we hereby adopt the official position that Tennessee should move to a system of registration by party.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Executive Committee adopts the position that participation in state primary elections, federal primary elections and county organization should be limited to those registering to vote in the party of their choice.

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the State Executive Committee directs the Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party to convey adoption of this position to the Governor of Tennessee, The Leadership of the Tennessee House of Representatives and the Leadership of the Tennessee Senate by transmitting a copy of this resolution to all Legislators Elected as Republicans serving in the 107th General Assembly as well as Governor Haslam. We further direct the Chairman to work with the Office of the Governor and the Legislature to promote this important matter and ensure its passage into law.

    For other views:
    Pick a Team @ Kay Brooks
    TN GOP SEC to be Presented with Plan to Close Primaries@ Blue Collar Muse
    TN GOP SEC to Consider Closed Primaries by Brian Hornback @ Brian’s Blog
    They are Open if You’re Republican or Democrat by Stacy Campfield @ Camp4U

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories

    Sunday, November 28, 2010

    Right the wrong and redraw the districts!

    by guest blogger J. Lee Douglas

    It's been a good harvest and now we need to get the grain to the threshing floor.

    Ten years ago in 2001, Jimmy Naifeh and seventy-eight power-hungry democrats agreed to redraw Tennessee's nine US congressional districts into serpentine patterns that grouped conservative-leaning neighborhoods into one single district that would give conservatives such as Marsha Blackburn an almost 95% voter selection. Among conservatives, she could almost not lose because the bulk of conservatives were strategically placed in her district. Sucks, eh? Get mad!!

    The net effect for the democrats was that the remaining areas would contain conservatives who would be the minority and never able to have a fair chance to choose someone who might represent their views. An example of this thievery is Jim Cooper's district which consists mostly of Davidson County which was drawn in a way to almost guarantee his election regardless of his obedience to Madame Pelosi.

    Look below at the Tennessee congressional map and notice Marsha Blackburn's (teal) district #7 how it runs from outside of Memphis, pinches off where Williamson and Hickman counties touch and then all the way to the Kentucky border in middle Tennessee north of Clarksville! Is that reasonable division of the populous? Mad yet?
    This was done for the simple reason that these geographic areas are largely conservative and doing the districting this way creates an imbalance that gives a material edge to people such as Cooper or Lincoln Davis. The math becomes that we get one, they get two, three or four!

    The irony? You are disenfranchised and the dems accuse you of their crime and the Tennessean carries their story. Get this, the dems who controlled all houses of the state were so happy with their divisions of congressional districts that from 1902 for sixty years they refused to reapportion the districts and finally relinquished when the US Supreme Court ordered reapportionment in 1962. Let's now act to have this injustice righted. Let's also lobby all of our representatives to NOT do to them what they did to us. We'll reap what we sow. Trust me, justice will prevail.

    With the 2010 census now being complete, the new republican legislative body has a chance to right this wrong and to insure that conservative, fair policies and block redrawing of the districts takes place January 11, at the beginning of the next legislative session.

    J. Lee Douglas is a practicing dentist in Brentwood Tennessee. He is married, father of four and grandfather of five. He established a Christian dental/medical clinic in Iraq in 1996 and had done oil and gas exploration in West Africa and lived for several years in Switzerland.  He is a local political activist and a Middle Tennessee leader in the TEA party movement and helped start the 9-12 Project Tennessee within 3 months of President Obama’s taking office. Prior to that time he had not been involved in political activity.

    Stumble Upon Toolbar
    My Zimbio
    Top Stories