Why I will no longer call myself a member of the tea party.

Recently the Gallup poll reported that support for the tea party was down from 32% in November 2010 to 22% today.  Quite frankly, I am not surprised and expect further decline unless the tea party can become less dogmatic and extreme.

When the tea party first came on the scene, I was all on board. I opposed Obamacare and run away deficits and wanted Republicans to stand strong, vigorously oppose Obamacare and not raise taxes. I felt I was part of a movement. I saw the tea party as a movement of newly energized people who for too long had been silent. On April 15th, 2009 I attended a tea party event and wrote enthusiastically about the experience. I was exited when Tea Party Express rolled into town and reported on it.

April 18, 2009

From the very first however, I was put off by some of the fringe that I saw attaching itself to the movement. At an early tea party event on Memorial Plaza (also called Legislative Plaza), either the event referenced above or another early event, there was a John  Birch Society booth. I was surprised. I thought the JBS had disappeared long ago. I had not heard anything from them in years.

 The John Birch Society emerged sometime in the 50's as a conservative, anti-communist organization.  There were chapters all across America.  Many respectable people joined the organization. On specific policies I almost always found myself in agreement with the JBS.

However, the problem with the John Birch Society is not the position they take on most issues but that they are nuts. When they talk about "the insiders" they do not simply mean people with influence the way you and I might use the term. When the JBS talks about "insiders" they are talking about people who belong to a secret society that has been pulling the strings since about 1776 with the formation of The Illuminati. According to JBS, The Illuminati has front groups and subsidiaries like The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderburg Group and others.  The JBS believes almost nothings just happens or is the result of clashing interest or ideologies but is planned and controlled by a handful of elites they call "the insiders."  Not everyone in the JBS even knows what the organization believes and they join  not knowing. If they are only causal members they may be clueless about what it is they have joined.

By the mid 1960's, the JBS had gained so such power in the conservative movement and in the Republican Party, that William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater issued a joint denunciation of the organization and urged conservatives to disassociate from it. After that the organization twiddled.

With the advent of the tea party, the John Birch Society found fertile ground for resurgence and growth.  One of the projects they took on was something called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was a 1992 UN sponsored study suggesting a course of action for sustainable development. It was not a treaty.  Some countries voluntarily implemented some of the Agenda 21 recommendations.  The JBS developed training kits where one could become an expert on Agenda 21 and present slide shows and produce brochures and teach about it.  These classes were taught all over the country, including here in Nashville. According to the JBS, Agenda 21 is a plot to take away all property rights, force people to live in tiny apartments and kill 97% of the worlds population by poisoning them with aspartame and fluoride. Crazy I know, but that is the theory. Everything from wide sidewalks, to roundabouts, to traffic calming, to mass transit, to art in public places, to bike share programs, to water conservation, to reintroduction of wolves in the wild became suspect as part of the grand conspiracy of Agenda 21.

The reemergence of the JBS caused me concern but I viewed them as nutty opportunist attaching themselves to the tea party and that did not make me less enthusiastic about the tea party. There were also others associated with the movement that made me a little uncomfortable, but I dismissed them as the extreme fringe or people simply carried away with enthusiasm and exhibiting over-the-top exuberance. In the early days it seemed that the speakers and leaders never engaged in excessively militant rhetoric and discouraged any thing that would bring discredit on the movement. Contrary to what some in the mainstream press said, I never saw even the slightest hint of racism associated with the movement.

In September, 2009 I attended a "liberty rally" at municipal auditorium that made me a little uneasy. The primary spokesman at the event was  Dr. Bob Basso, who portrays Thomas Paine in numerous YouTube videos and personal appearances across the country. There was a big crowd and lots of enthusiasm and waving of flags and cheering at the event. I joined in the  enthusiasm of the moment. However, Basso pandered to the birthers at this event. He said something to this effect: “I have been called a community organizer and to a certain extend I guess I am but,” and here he paused and reached into his pocket and pulled out a piece of paper and held it up and said, “I am a community organizer with a birth certificate.” The audience went wild and cheered.  I did not. I think the birther movement is a discredit to the conservative movement and I want no part of it. As his speech went on, I also cheered  and applauded. I also want to throw the bums out. I want to reduce the size of government, etc. etc. I want to “take my country back.” As his talk went on however, he nearly advocated secession and resistance to paying taxes. I am not ready to take up arms and man the barricades. I knew this brand of tea partyism was something I did not want to be part of and I said at the time, "I feel that if the extremism is not curtailed the movement will be discredited."

While there were various other events that I attended and enthusiastically endorsed, such as the Gibson Guitar event and the Education Reform event, more and more I found myself parting ways with factions of the tea party. One group identified as "tea party" is the Glen Beck associated 9-12 group. In July of 2012, our own local 9-12 chapter took out a full-page, $5000 advertisement called, "an open letter to Governor Haslam and the people of Tennessee." It said the actions of Governor Haslam would make us subject to Sharia law and attacked Governor Haslam for his administration's hiring of a highly qualified Tennessee attorney who happened to be a Muslim. I find that just nuts and a waste of time and money, and bigoted and wrong. 

Nashville Tax Day Tea Party rally April 15, 2009

People identified as "tea party" were also heavily involved in efforts to stop the building of a Mosque in Murfressboro. While I recognize the threat of radical Islam, you do not combat that threat by denying Freedom of Religion. Opponents of the Mosque took the unbelievable position that Islam is not really a religion but rather an ideology and therefore should not have the protections of freedom of religion guaranteed in the Constitution. It seems a lot of tea partiers have a much different interpretation of the First Amendment than I do.  Maybe if they can deny First Amendment protection to Muslims, then next it will be the Church of Scientology, then Jehovah Witness, and maybe Mormons. After all, Mormonism is not really a religion but a cult, I can hear them argue. And Buddhism? Why, that is not a religion; it is a foreign philosophy.  Buddhist don't even claim a deity. Surely the First Amendment does not apply to Buddhist. Don't allow them to build temples! Where would it end?

While I disagree with the way some in the tea party movement interpret the First Amendment, I also
disagree with them on the Second Amendment. While they want to shrink the First Amendment to mean much less, they want to expand the Second Amendment to mean much more. Some who claim to be supporting the Second Amendment want to interpret the Second Amendment to mean they can trample my private property rights and can carry a gun into my home or my place of business even if I have a "no guns" policy.  Clearly the second amendment is a restriction on government, not on the right of someone to prohibit guns on their private property. Elements of the tea party defeated Debra Maggart, a good leader of the Tennessee Republican Party in the State legislature, over this issue.

Ben Cunningham at Gibson Guitar Rally Oct. 2011

Another issue that causes me concern is the many tea party people who disregard the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and support the   discredited  theory of nullification. Nullification says each state can decide whether or not a federal law shall have effect in their state. Even George Wallace when he stood in a school house door to stop integration of the University of Alabama did not do so on the basis of nullification. When the National Guard was federalized, he stepped aside. Tea party members of the State legislature have introduced laws that would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents enforcing federal law. I am not ready to join an armed rebellion and engage in insurrection.

The tea party also has a history of supporting real losers for public office. Nationally there have been

May 21, 2013 IRS protest

some "tea party" candidates elected who I admire and support such as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Curz, Tom Coburn, and Mike Lee. However, the tea party has also supported some embarrassing losers like  Christine O'Donnell in Delaware of "I am not a witch" fame, and Sharron Angle who won the primary to run against Senate majority leader Harry Reid and then lost the election when a more establishment Republican could have probably beat Reid. Candidates backed by the tea party effectively cost the GOP five winnable Senate elections in 2010 and 2012 in Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Indiana and Missouri. Todd Akin lost in Missouri, Richard Mourdock lost in Indiana, and Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut.

Here in Tennessee, the tea party has lined up behind Joe Carr. Carr supports nullification, does not

The Tea Party supports Joe Carr for "Sentate"

think Muslims have the right to First Amendment protection and thinks the Second Amendment allows an individuals to carry a gun on to private property where the owner does not want one to carry a gun. In addition Carr has ran a bumbling campaign. Should, by some miracle he win the Republican nomination, Democrat Terry Adams would most likely be the next Senator from Tennessee.

The tea party is not a political party, but rather a movement. It is a conservative-libertarian-populist movement and I have considered myself part of it. Even when disagreeing with some of the factions in the movement and some of the leaders of the movement, I still though myself as part of it.  No one person can speak for the tea party. I have occasionally been asked if I am part of the tea party and in the past I have proudly said I was. If to be a member in good standing of the tea party however means one has to support Joe Carr, believe in nullification, believe the First Amendment does not apply to Muslims and believe the Second Amendment trumps property rights, then I no longer want to be part of it.

Top Stories

Two really bad pro-gun bills shot down: One proposed "nullification"; the other trampled private property rights.

Two nutty pro-gun bills, both sponsored by Sen Mae Beavers. were shot down this week in the State legislature. While a lot of embarrassingly bad bills get introduced, thankfully common sense usually prevails and few of the really bad bills pass.

SB1607 would have nullified any federal gun law in Tennessee if the gun in question was manufactured in Tennessee and remained in Tennessee. Nullification is the discredited theory that a state can nullify a federal law. The civil war settled that issue for most folks but a hard core element of fringe conservatives still advocate nullification from time to time.

SB1607 has been deemed unconstitutional by the State's Attorney General and a similar law in another state was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The bill got 3 "ayes," 4 "nays," and one present not voting in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators voting aye on SB1607 were Campfield, Bell, and Green, and those voting "no" were Senators Kelsey, Overbey, Finney, and Stevens. Senator Ford was present and not voting.

The other bill was SB1733 which was a rewrite of last year's "guns in trunk" law, which really didn't do much. SB1733 would have accomplished what I think proponents of last year's bill wanted to accomplish. It would allow a person to carry a gun onto the property of their employer even if the employer had a "no guns" policy. It would prohibit an employer form bringing criminal charges against an employee who did so and would open the employer up to being sued if he fired the employee.

This bill was certainly not a pro-Second Amendment bill as some have tried to fashion it. As anyone who knows anything about the constitution knows, rights numerated in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not individuals. Google or The Tennessean can not violate one's First Amendment Rights and one's employer cannot violated one's Second Amendment rights.  This bill would trample the right of private property. 

Senators voting aye on SB1733 were Campfield, Bell, and Green and those voting "no" were Kelsey, Overbey, Finney, Ford, and Stevens. 

Mae Beaver's days in the State Legislature may be numbered as she has picked up a strong primary challenger in the person of  Clark Boyd. Until recently Boyd was chair of the Wilson County Republican Party, is a small business owner and has good conservative and community involvement credentials.

Top Stories

Beavers introduces nutty nullification gun bill

Mae Beavers

The legislature is back in session and the nuts are on the loose.  Senator Mae Beavers has introduced a new pro-gun bill that would nullify any federal gun laws in Tennessee.

Beavers is also the sponsor of the law to block implementation of Obamacare in the State.  Her Obamacare bill however makes it illegal for anyone representing the State to assist in implementing Obamacare, it does not declare Obamacare illegal. This gun bill does. It says:

A firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is present in this state or is owned or possessed by an individual or entity in this state is not subject to any federal enactment or federal enforcement action. The rights of an individual or entity relative to firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition shall not be subject to any federal enactment or federal enforcement action in this state.

That is one step away from rebellion. It is one thing for a state to not enforce a federal law; it is something else entirely to say citizen of our state are not subject to federal law. When Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, they did not declare federal marijuana laws null and void in their state.  Federal agents could still make marijuana bust in Colorado if they chose.  Nullification was settled a long time ago and the supremacy clause trumps nullification.

Tennessee Firearms Association Executive Director John Harris who has flexed his muscle in the past by engineering the defeat of former House Republican Caucus Whip  Debra Maggart and he now thinks he is invincible and is daring Republicans to oppose this bill:

Any elected official in Tennessee who works against this bill is frankly siding with President Obama on gun control. If you don’t vote to protect your own citizens and state from Obama’s liberal gun-grabbing agenda, then you are effectively supporting his gun control scheme and the intentional destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Hopefully sanity will prevail. John Harris might be able to make an example of a single legislator and he might be able to pick them off one by one, but if the sane member of the legislature stick together he can not defeat them all. Someone needs to stand up to the bullying tactics of the TFA. Opposing this bill is not "siding with President Obama on gun control;" it is standing up for sanity and the Constitution and opposing open rebellion against the Federal Government.

To read the full text of the bill, follow this link and click SB1607.

Top Stories

Nullification is dangerous, unlawful, and unconstitutional

Last night at Liberty on the Rocks, I engaged in some discussion with people who took issue with my recent blog post Beavers introduces nutty nullification gun bill. They argued that  nullification is a valid State response to Federal overreach. I have argued my view on nullification previous on the pages of this blog. I am going to repeat myself by reposting a blog post from March 4, 2013.  If you would like to argue the minutia of the issue, please see the links to National Review, Heritage, Weekly Standard, and Cato. I am sure you will find a rebuttal to your assertion. Rod

Conservatives know nullification is dangerous, unlawful, and unconstitutional

With the controversy that is brewing over SB250, the bill sponsored by Mae Beavers that would nullify any new federal gun laws in Tennessee and would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents carrying out federal law, Republicans are split on the issue.  Those who favor nullification are claiming to be the real conservatives and are demonizing as statist those who support the supremacy clause of the Constitution and think that nullification is foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

The pro-nullification forces are very vitriolic in their denunciation of those with whom they disagree.  Many tea party types are claiming that the conservative position is to support nullification.  If you disagree with them, well maybe you got your understanding of the constitution from liberal academics. 

Rosine Ghawji, the co-chair of  a group called Memphis Tea Party, posted a letter he wrote to Sen. Brian Kelsey on the Federation of Republican Women facebook page. Sen. Kelsey is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and led the fight to defeat SB250.  Ghawji accuses Senator Kelsey of having been brainwashed and says he "doesn’t understand the most basic constitutional construction." He goes on to say, "Brian Kelsey is a perfect example of one whom vows an oath the the US Constitution - BUT CLEARLY doesn't know what is in it - or doesn't care."

The Tenth Amendment Center has posted a picture that features President Obama with a caption that ask, "Was this guy Tennessee Senator Brian Kelsey's law professor?" We conservative activist are being bombarded by self-taught constitutional experts who tell us to ignore the history of failed attempts by states to nullify federal law, to ignore the outcome of the civil war, and to ignore 250 years of constitutional case law. 

If like me you believe the supremacy clause really means something and that nullification is unconstitutional and dangerous but feel like the whole conservative movement is heading in the other direction, take heart. The most vocal conservative activist may be on a bandwagon that is endorsing nullification, but you are not alone. 

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious well-respected research and educational institution that has been around since 1979.  There mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.:"  It is difficult for anyone to claim they are part of the liberal establishment. A little over a year ago, they published a short essay on their web site explaining why nullification is unlawful and unconstitutional.  "There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally," they say. Many advocates of nullification claim that Madison and Jefferson supported the theory of nullification. Heritage says that is not so and explains the historical record to prove it. 

National Review  in an article Nullification Temptation said , "Nullification is a dangerous weapon to brandish. Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare, but the entire Constitution." NR also argues against nullification in an article called Federal Nullification Is a Bad Idea. National Reveiw is the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley in the 1950's.  They have been the leading source of conservative thought since their founding.  No one could underestimate NR's contribution to the Conservative movement. Also, the Weekly Standard has taken a position against nullification. 

Another prominent think tank often described as libertarian or libertarian-leaning is the Cato Institute.  In an article exploring the constitutionality of Obamacare a Cato Institute journalist wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the 'powers … delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to 'nullify' unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected."

There are plenty of sensible respected conservative voices speaking out against nullification. Just because the proponents may yell the loudest it does not make them right.  Do not question your conservative bona fides because you are not swept away by the passion of the moment. With National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Heritage Foundation and Cato on my side, I feel pretty confident of my position. Clearly nullification is unlawful, unconstitutional and dangerous. Below is a link to the Heritage article mentioned above.

Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional

Feb 8, 2012 – Despite good intentions, some have been tempted to embrace nullification: the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto ...

Top Stories