Friday, June 10, 2011

Sen. Corker sponsors resolution requiring authorization for war in Libya

Sen. Corker introduced a joint resolution of Congress this week requiring the Obama administration to provide a detailed justification of U.S. operations in Libya and prohibiting the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground there. It further calls on the president to request authorization for the continuation of U.S. involvement in NATO activities and states that Congress should fully debate such a request expediently. Nearly 90 days after the initiation of force in Libya, no debate has occurred.
“It has now been more than 80 days since the United States first launched military action in Libya in what was supposed to be only a very limited operation, but neither the Congress nor the American people have any clearer view of the administration’s stated mission or end game for our military involvement in Libya. Having been denied answers, repeatedly, to these fundamental questions or even a comprehensive debate to consider the merits of U.S. involvement in such an engagement, it’s long past time to set a final deadline to get the information every man and woman who puts on a uniform and every taxpayer who funds the operation deserves,” Sen. Corker said.

***Click image to view video***

The joint resolution, which would have the force of law, requires the Administration to publicly answer a detailed series of questions about the Libya operation within 14 days of enactment.  Parts of the resolution mirror bills passed in the House of Representatives.

Comment: It is appalling that the President of the United States can take the nation to war without consultation with Congress. It is appalling that we will go to war on the authorization of the United Nations. What about the War Powers Act?  It is very specific about when the President may commit the nation to war. Why has this president not been impeached? I applaud Senator Corker for his leadership. Please watch this video. Regardless of how one feels about the merits of the war in Libya, surely one cannot think the President should unilaterally commit this nation to war.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Donelson-Hermitage Summit this Saturday

DCRP-Davidson County Republican Party
Donelson-Hermitage Eggs & Bacon Summit
Saturday, June 11, 2011
 meeting at 

Ryan's Steakhouse
 3435 Lebanon Pike, Hermitage

 Dutch treat Breakfast is at 8:30
 Meeting begins at 9 am (sharp)

guest speaker
Steve Glover
Steve Glover
Candidate for Council District 12
 meet other candidates for Metro Council

Event Chairmen - Ken Marrero
Rod Williams, DCRP Summit Coordinator

Please register at:

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Councilman Bo Mitchell Violates State Election Law

A constituent of Councilman Bo Mitchell today filed a complaint against the councilman for violation the law relating to the signatures required on the Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement for State and Local Candidates. The Campaign Financial Disclosure Statement requires that someone witness the signatures of the candidate and the political treasurer.

According to Tennessee State Law: “All statements required by this part shall be signed by the person filling such statement in the presence of one (1) witness who shall sign such statements as a witness. The treasurer shall not be authorized to sign as a witness.

The Disclosure Statement completed and signed by Councilman Bo Mitchell was witnessed by the treasurer of his campaign, Chastity Mitchell. Chastity Mitchell in addition to being Bo Mitchell's treasurer is also his wife.

This appears clear-cut: Bo Mitchell violated the State Campaign Disclosure law. If Mitchell was a new candidate and this was his first time to file, one might be tempted to dismiss this as the simple mistake of a novice. However, this is not the first time Mitchell has violated this section of the law. On Mitchell’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Statements dated 1/25/10, 7/15/10, 1/10/11, and 4/10/11 Mitchell's treasurer, Chastity Mitchell, witnessed each of the statements. She was the only witness; there was no other.

Equally disturbing, as Bo Mitchell's violation of the law in filing his campaign report on these four occasions, is that this violation was never caught by the Election Commission. What is the purpose of having laws if no one polices the law? Why even have people file reports if the reports are not going to be reviewed for compliance?

I would like to know: (1) Why did Bo Mitchell not follow the law, and (2) who at the election commission was responsible for reviewing the Disclosure Statements, (3) why the incorrect filling was not discovered, and (4) what will the election commission  do to insure this does not happen again.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Weiner roast

"I don't know if laws were broken or not, but Weiner was sending around pictures of him in his underpants and I thought, Well, now, wait a minute, what is the big deal? Don't men and women in Congress get to mail their packages for free?!" —David Letterman

"It turns out that one of the women Congressman Anthony Weiner was communicating with was a porn star. When asked how it was possible to get involved with someone in such a sleazy business, the porn star said, 'I don't know.'" —Conan O'Brien

"This is why Twitter exists. Members of Congress can now send you pictures of their penises electronically. Remember the old days of Senator Larry Craig when you had to get in your car, drive to the airport, find the airport bathroom, try to figure out which stall he's in, knock on the door...Now they send it right to your house." —Jay Leno

"BREAKING: Rep. Anthony Weiner admits the Twitter pics are his. He also said, 'When I took the pics it was really really cold." —Justin Stangel

Remember when the only people who saw a politician's penis were hookers and interns?

Schwartzenegger, Weiner, DSK and John Edwards walk in a bar. There were no survivors.

Somewhere James Carville is thankful that Bill Clinton didnt have a cellphone with a camera back in the 90s.

"I'm deeply sorry for the pain this has staff."

Looks like Weiner's ego suffered some serious shrinkage.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Rick Santorum for President? I'm impressed.

To say the least, I have been under impressed by the slate of announced and potential Republican nominees for President. I believe Obama is beatable, but we must have someone to beat him with. I would vote for anyone the Republicans run against Obama but think front-runner Mitt Romney is only slightly better than Obama and does not offer us much of a choice. I would have a hard time getting excited about Romney.

I was relieved when Donald Trump announced he was not going to run. I thought he was a joke and only a step above a carnival barker. I would hate to have to vote for Ron Paul, or Newt Gringich. I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but his isolationist foreign policy concerns me as well as some other things he has said. He strikes me as simply too extreme. Once upon a time, Newt was a favorite of mine but he disappointed me by his pandering to the anti-Muslim crowd and his trashing of Paul Ryan. The more he talks, the less I like him. He seems nothing like the Newt Gringich I once liked.

I think Sara Palin is a light weight and an air head but still occasionally find myself attracted to her charm and straight talk. I could support her, but have reservations. I like Michelle Backman but have not seen enough of her to know if I could support her for the nomination. I also do not know a lot about some of the other candidates yet, but so far have not been impressed by what I have seen.

This week I watched the C-Span presidential announcement of Rick Santorum and I was impressed. He has passion, he says the right things, and he inspires confidence.This might be the man I could get behind. I felt a political excitement watching him. I had a favorable gut reaction. I found myself applauding.  This might be someone I could get excited about.

If you missed his speech on Cspan, you can view it here. This speech is 48 minutes long.

The Club for Growth is evaluating each of the announced Republican candidates on economic issues. Here is a link to their report on Rick Santorum.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Monday, June 06, 2011

Popular presidential vote subverts Constitution

The below opinion article from John Ryder appeared in Friday's edition of The Washington Times. John Ryder is a Republican National Committee member from Tennessee.

By John Ryder

The proposal by some fellow Republicans for a "national popular vote (NPV) compact" is an example of what H.L. Mencken meant when he said, "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, clear and wrong."
The compact would subvert the Constitution by changing how we elect our president. Instead of forthrightly seeking to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Electoral College, the proposal bypasses the Constitution by creating a compact among some states that would bind all states.
Under the plan, the electoral votes of a state would be committed to the slate that is the "national popular vote winner" regardless of the vote within the state.
The Electoral College is part of an elaborate mechanism designed by the Founders to create interdependent centers of power, each balancing the excesses of the others. The Constitution balances the competing elements of our Republic: The membership of the House of Representatives is based on population. The Senate is based on equal representation by state.
This design balances the interests of large and small states.
The Electoral College mirrors this arrangement by giving each state electoral votes equal to its membership in the House plus its two Senators. Thus, California gets 55 electoral votes because of its large population, but no state, even Delaware, has fewer than three electoral votes. It reflects the Founders' compromise between large states and small states and between electing the president by Congress and electing the president directly by the people.
Bypassing the Electoral College through the proposed compact undermines that balance by effectually erasing states' boundaries along with those states' sovereignty.
On a practical level, the Constitution requires a successful candidate to assemble a winning coalition across a broad geographic spectrum, embracing both large and small states, rather than a narrow concentration of votes.
A popular vote, in contrast, does not require the candidate to have broad appeal. It would make it possible for a candidate to win without any majority but merely a plurality of the popular vote. The compact would require the states to determine the candidate with the "largest national popular vote" - not a majority. Thus, in a multicandidate race, the "largest national popular vote" could be obtained by a regional candidate with just 35 percent or 40 percent of the popular vote.
Under such an arrangement, presidential candidates would have no incentive to campaign anywhere except the major media markets in a few states. The country would, in essence, cede our presidential elections to the largest metropolitan areas, whose concerns are different from those of other areas of the country.
NPV would maximize the rewards of vote fraud in those large metropolitan areas. Under the Electoral College, an illegal vote only affects the outcome in one state; under the popular vote compact, an illegal vote would affect the national outcome.
What is illegal voting? Laws and procedures vary. In some states, convicted felons can vote while still in prison; in others, they must complete their sentence and apply for reinstatement.
Our system has proved remarkably stable for more than 200 years. Ours is the world's second-oldest written Constitution, after Iceland's. That is remarkably long for a governmental structure. Only the Civil War mars our record of political stability, but the breakdown in the system in 1861 did not occur because of the Electoral College.
The American Bar Association once called the Electoral College "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous and dangerous." These adjectives describe virtues of our constitutional system, not faults. It is archaic - not obsolete - and still serves us well. It is supposed to be undemocratic, to protect smaller states from tyranny by a few large states. We are a republic, not a democracy.
The complexity of the system prevents wild swings in popular sentiment from becoming wild swings in policy. It is ambiguous only in that it is subtle rather than simplistic. If it is dangerous, the alternative of NPV, with the voters of a few states binding the voters of the rest of the states, is much more dangerous.
The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said of an earlier proposal to do away with the Electoral College: "It is the most radical transformation in our constitutional system that has ever been considered." Our constitutional method of electing presidents, balancing the state and federal governments, has served our nation well. It would be foolish and disingenuous to bypass the written Constitution, nominally keeping the Electoral College but nullifying its function.
 Comment: I was prepared to blog making the same arguments when I got this in my email this morning. I am glad to see Mr. Ryder make the argument. It was beginning to look like everyone was jumping on the popular vote bandwagon.  People who want to abolish the electoral college simply do not understand the nature of our political system or if they do they drastically want to change it. Many simply do not realize that the Electoral College is part of that structure of our republican form of government. Many make a fetish out of the popular vote as if that is the essence of democracy. Good government is more than two wolves and lamb voting what to have for dinner. We need to strengthen federalism, balance of power and states rights, not further weaken them.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories