Saturday, August 10, 2019

Senate hearings on the 'heartbeat' bill will be Monday Aug. 12 and Tuesday Aug 13.

From Eagle Forum:

We have been waiting for this since April 22. As you may recall the 'heartbeat' bill passed the State House, but, due to some questions about the text, it was sent to a 'day certain' summer study by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of the legislation session
That Senate hearing will be held on Monday, August 12th at 1:00 pm and Tuesday, August 13 at 9:00 am in Senate Hearing Room 1 in Cordell Hull.

Our good friend, former Senator and now President of Family Action Council, David Fowler helped to rewrite the bill after the state House passed a different version that was constitutionally questionable. He will be testifying during the hearing.

If you care about this issue, and I certainly hope that each of our subscribers does, you will want to contact each of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (see contact information below) and urge them to support this rewritten legislation.  If this bill fails, there won't be another bill like it until at least 2021.

The opposition to this legislation is very strong which is why we must be faithful in PRAYING and ACTING!  Just because Tennessee is considered to be such a 'red, pro-life state' does NOT necessarily mean this bill will get out of committee. That may depend on YOU! 

Groups Call for Christians to Come to the Capitol and Pray During the Heartbeat Bill Summer Study .
As the Summer Study for Tennessee’s Heartbeat Bill approaches, groups are calling for Christians to join in a Prayer March being held on August 12, the first day of the proceedings.
promotional video, created by Life Choices of Memphis and joined by Bott Radio NetworkConservative Christians of Tennessee and the Tennessee Pastors Network, calls on Christian families from all across Tennessee to come to the State Capitol at the start of the Heartbeat Bill Summer Study

ACLU-Tennessee calls on residents to voice opposition in fetal heartbeat bill hearings .
NASHVILLE, Tenn.--The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) is calling on Tennesseans to attend a public hearing on the proposed fetal heartbeat bill.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Mike Bell (R-Riceville)
          (615) 741-1946
Jon Lundberg (R-Bristol),
           (615) 741-5761   

Dawn White (R-Murfreesboro)
             (615) 741-6853

Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma)
               (615) 741-6694

Todd Gardenhire (R-Chattanooga)
     (615) 741-6682

Sara Kyle (D-Memphis)
          (615) 741-4167

Kerry Roberts (R-Springfield)
           (615) 741-4499
Katrina Robinson (D-Memphis)
        (615) 741-2509

John Stevens (R-Huntingdon)
          (615) 741-4576


Monday, August 12
1:00 PM – Cordell Hull Building,
Senate Hearing Room I

(schedule subject to change)
Opening remarks by the Chairman and Committee
Elizabeth Insogna, Office of Legal Services
Adam J. MacLeod, professor of law, Faulkner Univeristy
Nate Kellum, Center for Religious Expression
David Fowler, Family Action Council of Tennessee
CeCe Heil, American Center for Law and Justice
Randy Davis, Tennessee Baptist Mission Board
Jim Bopp, National Right to Life Committee

Tuesday, August 13
8:00 AM – Cordell Hull Building,
Senate Hearing Room I

(schedule subject to change)
David Forte, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Richard Mast, Liberty Council
Jeff Cobble
Dr. Brent Boles
Paul Linton, special council to the Tennessee Right to Life
Heather Shumaker, National Women’s Law Center
Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-TN
Dr. Nikki Zeit, Planned Parenthood of Tennessee
Tracey George, Planned Parenthood of Tennessee
Jay Hartley, Planned Parenthood of Tennesee
Alan Keyes
Dr. David Stevens, Christian Medical and Dental Association
Hal Rounds
Moe Proctor
June Griffin, Tennessee Committee for the Bill of Rights
Dr. Richard Orland, Beloved Heart
Nancy Corley, Women’s Political Collaborative of Tennessee
Rabbi Laurie Rice, Congregation Micah
Cherisse Scott, SisterReach
Dr. Susan Dodd, Knoxville Reproductive Health Center

Regardless of where you are you can pray and it you can't attend, you can watch the hearing  at this link on the TN Capitol website.

Bobbie Patray

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Thursday, August 08, 2019

Why I am sending money to Democrat candidates for president.

by Rod Williams - I am sending money to Democrat candidates for president.  I have not switched parties. I am still me. Why am I doing this?  The primary reason is that I want to continue to see a crowded field running in the Democrat primary. If the field is crowded, that makes it harder for Democrats to pick a winner. A crowded field delays the process and that helps Trump.  It keeps Democrats focusing on their own differences. It is also likely to keep the Democrats over on the far left end of the political spectrum as they compete for the Democrat voters on the fringe. In my view, the longer we can keep Democrats talking about The Green New Deal, Medicare for all, abolishing ICE, advocating open borders, free college for all, and reparations, the better it is for Republicans.

For the third set of debates which will be held on September 12 and 13 in Houston, if 10 or fewer candidates qualify, the debate will take place on only one night. It would be advantageous to the Trump campaign if  the debate is held on two nights because fewer people will watch two nights of debates than would watch one night of debates. 

In the third round of debates, candidates will need to poll at least 2% in four polls and acquire donations from 130,000 unique donors. This is a much tougher thresholds than in the earlier debates.

Nine candidates have reached that threshold. They are: former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Kamala Harris of California, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont,  Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.  

Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district, and  former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro have met the donor threshold but have not met the polling threshold. Sending money to those who have already met the donor threshold would not help them get in the debate. If a pollster calls me however, I am saying I'm voting for Julian Castro.

There are four others who rank at less than 1% in polling so they are probably a lost cause and I am not going to give money to them. They are: Michael Bennet, Bullock, Bill de Blasio and Swalwell.

So, that leaves these who would benefit by getting a campaign contribution. They are within striking distance of meeting the polling threshold but short on the donor threshold. They are:

  • John Delaney, former United States Representative for Maryland's 6th congressional district.
  • John Hickenlooper, former Governor of Colorado.
  • Tim Ryan, U.S. Representative for Ohio's 13th congressional district
I have sent each of the three a $1 contribution. Really, I sent one dollar. Please do the same. The highlighted names above, link to the candidates campaign web sites.

A reason I don't feel bad about sending a one dollar contribution to a Democrat is that for a one dollar contribution, they will probably waste a lot more than that on soliciting more contributions from me and my name will be sold to liberal causes and for years to come I will be getting solicitations. Some of them will have return envelopes with real stamps on them which I can use for other purposes. My $3 may cost the cause of liberalism $300.

I wish someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or one of the big conservative bloggers would advocate this; we could help sabotage the Democrat effort. Anyway, I am doing my small part.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Briley looks for help from people who make money from city

By: Ben Hall, News Channel 5 - The morning after Mayor David Briley's 10-point loss to challenger John Cooper, some of Nashville's most influential business leaders gathered at the offices of billionaire John Ingram hoping to reset the mayor's campaign as it heads to a runoff election. ....

The morning after Mayor David Briley's 10-point loss to challenger John Cooper, some of Nashville's most influential business leaders gathered at the offices of billionaire John Ingram hoping to reset the mayor's campaign as it heads to a runoff election.

Ingram, who hosted the meeting, is also co-owner of Nashville's new soccer team, which is the beneficiary of a $250 million development deal with the city for a new soccer stadium.
Briley supported that controversial stadium deal, and his administration helped push it through the Metro Council. (link)

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

Briley's strategy to beat Cooper is to claim the mantle of "progressive" and paint Cooper as a "conservative."

by Rod Williams- The Tennessean reports today that Mayor David Briley says, "We will fight like hell," as he continues his reelection campaign. With John Cooper winning 35% of the vote compared to 25% for Briley, there hss been some speculation that Briley would throw in the towel and discontinue his campaign. Instead, Briley vows to keep on fighting.

In the Tennessean article Briley takes the position that he is the progressive and has "a forward-looking vision" and "a proven record of two decades of work for progressive causes in Nashville," while Cooper "has demonstrated he has a conservative approach in many respects and is more interested in looking in the rear view mirror than moving the city forward."

For the next few weeks I think that will be the main message of Briley, to paint himself as the progressive and Cooper as the conservative: Briley, "forward-looking;" Cooper a reactionary. Briley has advocated some progressive positions, such as making members of the LGBT community a favored group entitled to favored treatment in the awarding of Metro Contracts and in advocating that Nashville be a sanctuary city.  However, Cooper has not been an outspoken opponent of these positions.  On controversial social issues and national issues such as immigration, I don't think there is much daylight between Cooper and Briley. Briley has been more vocal, but they are both Democrats.

Where Briley can rightly be entitled to claiming to be the "progressive" and rightly label Copper the "conservative," is on fiscal management of the city.  Nashville has the most debt per person of any city our size in the nation.  Cooper is concerned about that; like a good progressive, debt does not seem to concern Briley.  Our police department is undermanned, in the last twenty years we have  build only one new fire hall and our fire department is under staffed, there is a terrible attrition rate among Metro school teachers and the number of failing schools is growing, we can't build sidewalks and our water and sewer and roadways are falling apart.  Cooper is the one who wants to focus on these things; Briely seems to think things are fine and we need to keep doing what we have been doing.  I guess focusing on the fundamentals and being concerned about public safety  and being fiscally responsible makes one a "conservative."

Cooper has been critical of sweetheart deals such as the fairgrounds soccer land giveaway deal and massive subsidy to Amazon. While I share Cooper's criticism and think many conservatives do also, so do many progressive social justice warriors.  Stand Up Nashville is very much a progressive organization and they were critical of the Amazon deal.  To label Cooper a conservative and Briley a progressive based on those issues is a stretch. Sometimes politics makes for strange alliances and it seems the most conservative element and the most progressive elements agree that corporate welfare is wrong.

Cooper has also taken a position that we need to build up and improve all neighborhoods of Nashville, not just focus on the downtown area.  I don't know if that makes one a conservative or a progressive but I think many neighborhood activist who think of themselves as progressive are more inclined to agree with Cooper than they are Briley's defense of the status quo.

Channel 5's political analyst Pat Nolan says that Briley will be seeking the support of those who voted for Carol Swan but says, "Cooper does have to get some Swain vote too", and his relationship with his brother could become an issue with some people. There are some Republicans and conservatives who like what John Cooper says about fiscal issues, they're not as crazy about his brother who they see as being very liberal in congress."

Maybe Nolan is right but he shouldn't be. Both Briley and Cooper are Democrats and both are liberal. Where they differ is that Cooper is for prudent fiscal responsibility and Briley thinks the way we have been doing things is just fine.

Labels can be a handy shortcut devise for determining if you align with another. However, labels can also be deceiving and the meanings change over time.  What is now called "conservative" used to be called "classical liberal."  I am still not sure what the difference is between "liberal" and "progressive." I think "progressive" simply means really, really liberal. When it comes to local elections however the terms don't really mean much. The big social issues can not be affected by local mayors or city council members.  Thanks to the state legislature. we cannot make Nashville a sanctuary city and we cannot impose rent controls, inclusionary zoning, or a $15 minimum wage. Locally, we cannot impact abortions or many of the other big divisive national issues.  Locally, we cannot print money. At a local level, debt matters now.

I am sure, that if they would stop and think about it, there are "progressives" more aligned with the fiscal responsibility and neighborhood orientation of Cooper than they are Briley. Also, I hope that Pat Nolan is wrong and that those who voted for Carol Swain will not vote for the fiscally irresponsible Briley simply because John Cooper is the brother of Jim Cooper. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories