Republicans aim to stop noncitizen voting in federal elections. It's already illegal
Top Stories
Saturday, April 13, 2024
Friday, April 12, 2024
Lawsuit filed to block fairgrounds referendum
November referendum about affordable housing at the fairgrounds.
Why it matters: A group opposing a racetrack improvement plan wants to amend the city charter to swap out racing for affordable housing on the list of required programming at the Metro-owned fairgrounds.
They need to gather thousands of voter signatures in order to put the proposal on the November ballot.
Yes, but: Chancery Court will have to consider a new challenge from Nashville resident and race car driver Jonathan Dishman before the affordable housing group can begin collecting signatures. ...
Top Stories
Birds Aren't Real
There is an all-out attack on our food supply, is there not? A small plane crashes into a chicken processing plant here, a grease fire at a potato chip factory there, and a sewer back up at a craft brewery. All accidents? Do you think that the Bird flu outbreak was just an accident?
And what about the full-throated attack on Christianity. A trailer full of Bibles burns in Mt. Juliet and the mint moves the location of "In God we Trust," on the quarter, placing God in an inferior position to man. Unrelated you say? No big deal?
And chem trails? At least our state legislature is banning chem trails in Tennessee.
And the bridge collapse in Baltimore? Alex Jones says it looks deliberate and Jesse Walters says we must get to the bottom of what really happened.
You do know that birds aren't real, don't you? At least that is the theory but of course the government won't talk about it. The government killed them all, the theory goes, and replaced them with little bird-like drones. I have a bird feeder outside my window, and I have been feeling like someone is watching me. And, the birds have been kind of wabbling when they fly. I have had my suspicions. I have not seen Jesse Walter demanding to "get to the bottom of this." I have not seen Tucker Carlson looking perplexed as he asks, "what's going on?" Have Carlson and Walters been coopted? Did the Deep State even get to them?
Where is the State legislature? This is every bid as big of a threat to the well-being of the people of Tennessee as is chem trails.
For more on this Deep State treachery, watch the video and visit the Bird's aren't Real website.
Top Stories
Thursday, April 11, 2024
Latest version of Nashville development authority bill would add Cabinet members
By Erik Schelzig, The Tennessee Journal, April 11, 2024- Senate Republicans are looking to add two voting members from the governor’s Cabinet to an East Bank Development Authority for the area surrounding the new $2.1 billion football stadium being built there. ...
Top Stories
Conservative Republican Courtney Johnston Clears Field Against Andy Ogles
 |
| Courtney Johnston |
“It is important that as a party we come together and unite to represent true conservative values with the civility, integrity and transparency that constituents deserve,” said Guarente.
"I’m running for Congress because I've seen first-hand what the radical left has tried to do in Nashville, and we can't afford to let that happen in D.C. I'm honored to challenge ineffective grand-standing head-to-head in this race and will work to deliver real results for the 5th District," said Johnston.
Last week, Johnston announced her campaign for Congress and released a video outlining why
she’s running.
Before serving on the Council, Johnston was a small business owner who took on the
bureaucracy and ran against an incumbent after her home was broken into. She saw first-hand
the need for better representation, crime reduction, and fiscal responsibility.
During her first term on Metro Council, Johnston fought to fully fund law enforcement, voted
against property tax hikes, and delivered real results for her district. As an experienced small
business owner, she’s a political outsider who wants to drain the swamp and get rid of career politicians.
For more information about Courtney and her campaign, please visit JohnstonForCongress.com.
Top Stories
Oppose the proposed Article V Constitution Convention
by Rod Williams, April 11, 2024 - The below I received in an email from a local Republican activist. This originated from an organization with which I have major differences on other issues, but on this issue, we are aligned. This does a good job of explaining the danger of an Article V Constitutional Convention.
The contact information for your state legislature can be found at this link.
URGENT UPDATE: The Tennessee Senate has rescheduled its planned debate and vote on term-limits Con-Con resolution HJR 5 for Monday, April 8, around 4:30 pm Eastern Time. This would be the final vote before HJR 5’s full enactment. Please continue emailing, calling, and meeting with your senator, and urge him or her to oppose this disastrous resolution and prevent it from being enacted.
When speaking to your legislators, emphasize the following irrefutable facts about an Article V convention for proposing amendments:
1. There is no constitutional authority for a limited convention.
2. There is no guidance on how delegates would be selected.
3. There is no guidance on who could qualify as a delegate.
4. There is no guidance on how many delegates each state could send.
5. There is no provision for stopping a runaway convention.
6. There is no provision for how rules would be established.
7. There is no provision for how rules would be enforced.
8. There is no role provided for the people to play in the process.
9. There is no power provided for the people to stop a convention once it starts.
10. There is no description of the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
11. There are no rules governing the ratification conventions Congress could choose to call.
12. There is no means provided for either the states or the people to challenge Congress’s choice of the method of ratification.
13. There is no test provided for a qualifying application submitted by a state.
14. The acceptance by one Congress of a state application for a convention does not bind subsequent Congresses from accepting that application.
15. Application for a convention submitted by one state legislature does not prevent subsequent state legislatures from revoking the previous application.
16. All these issues would be challenged in court and would take years to be decided.
17. The issues to be addressed at a convention to propose amendments would likely be moot by the time the challenges reached the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication.
18. If 100 percent of registered voters opposed an amendment proposed by a convention, but the requisite number of state legislatures or ratifying conventions (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments) supported it, then that amendment would become part of the Constitution regardless of the will of the people.
19. The same scenario is true if a proposed amendment were approved by 100 percent of registered voters but rejected by the ratification conventions or state legislatures (according to the process determined by Congress for consideration of proposed amendments).
Term limits is one of the main excuses for applying for an Article V convention. Here are some points refuting a congressional term limits amendment:
1. Term limits don’t tackle the fundamental issue of public understanding and responsibility for electing representatives.
2. Imposing term limits would limit the electoral choices of voters and potentially remove good, constitutionalist congressmen.
3. Imposing term limits contradicts the American government system established by the Founders. The Constitution’s provision for frequent elections effectively serves as term limits, as intended by the Founders like James Madison.
4. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 72, criticized the superficial appeal of term limits, a view applicable to many COS proposals. At the Constitutional Convention, Gouverneur Morris warned against term limits for their negative impact on motivation and good governance.
5. The Constitution already sets “good behavior” as a term limit for federal judges, with removal power vested in Congress. COS’s push to limit Supreme Court justices’ terms overlooks the existing constitutional provision and responsibility of Congress to impeach underperforming judges.
6. Effective governance can be achieved by enforcing the existing Constitution, not by amending it to limit terms.
Any Article V convention could lead to a runaway convention, which could reverse many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power and interference. In other words, a Con-Con could accomplish the same goals that many of its advocates claim to be fighting against.
Above all, urge your state senator to oppose HJR 5, and all other pro-Article V convention resolutions.
Top Stories
Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Trump's Abortion Stance Is Convenient, but That Does Not Mean He's Wrong
Reason: Trump's Abortion Stance Is Convenient, but That Does Not Mean He's Wrong. His embrace of federalism is one of those rare instances when political expedience coincides with constitutional principles. (link)
Top Stories
Donald Trump’s 60% Tariff on Chinese Imports could actually lose revenue.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, APR 10, 2024 - Former President and current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently proposed implementing a tariff of 60 percent or higher on imports from China. Although we estimate this would generate $2.4 trillion of net new revenue on a static basis, it would ultimately produce far less revenue – or even lose revenue – once changes in trade behavior are taken into account. Specifically, under conventional scoring we estimate it would produce no more than $300 billion over a decade and could lose $50 billion. On a macrodynamic basis, it would likely lose revenue under both scenarios.
In addition to his proposed 10 percent universal baseline tariff, President Trump recently proposed increasing tariffs to 60 percent or more on all imports from China. Under current projections, we estimate the United States will import roughly $5.6 trillion of goods from China between Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and 2035 at an average tariff rate of about 10 percent (up from 3 percent in 2017).
These estimates imply that raising the tariff to 60 percent would increase customs duties on Chinese imports in FY 2035 from about $65 billion to nearly $400 billion and would generate $2.4 trillion of net revenue over a decade on a static basis after accounting for income and payroll tax revenue offsets. However, assessing this policy on a static basis does not provide a meaningful revenue estimate.
In reality, such a large increase in tariffs would dramatically reduce trade with China (as intended) and thus lead to far less revenue than the static figure implies. Assuming elasticities consistent with trade literature, we estimate this tariff increase would reduce imports from China by about 85 percent. Despite the much higher tariff rates on remaining imports, tariff revenue on Chinese goods would fall from roughly $65 billion to $55 billion in FY 2035 under this scenario.
Assuming Chinese imports are replaced entirely by domestic production, the Treasury would absorb nearly all that revenue loss. If, on the other hand, replacement goods were imported from other countries subject to Trump’s proposed 10 percent baseline tariff, tariff revenue in FY 2035 on Chinese imports and their replacements would grow to above $100 billion.
When incorporating impacts on individual and corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, on a conventional basis we estimate the policy would generate as much as $300 billion in net revenue over a decade or lose as much as $50 billion, again depending on what share of Chinese imports are replaced with domestic versus foreign goods.
Those figures would be lower after incorporating macroeconomic effects. For example, assuming the tariffs and responses reduced economic output by about 1 percent – consistent with the similar-sized universal baseline tariff – the policy could lose between $200 and $500 billion over a decade.
Importantly, even tariffs that do not reduce deficits could theoretically have other benefits – including reducing economic reliance on China, helping support some domestic industries, and strengthening our national security.
However, while some tariff increases can meaningfully bolster revenue and reduce debt, very large increases are likely to diminish and even reverse those fiscal gains. In this particular case, we estimate that a 60 percent tariff on all goods imports from China would generate less than $300 billion and could actually lose revenue.
Top Stories
States file suit to block Biden's student debt forgiveness plan
The lawsuit comes after Biden on Monday announced the plan, which the states in question say is an overreach of executive authority. The White House claims that Biden has so far canceled at least some of the debt for 4 million Americans, totaling $146 billion so far.
The White House said the newest effort would partially forgive debt for 30 million Americans, though independent analyses have not confirmed that figure.
“With the stroke of his pen, Joe Biden is attempting to saddle working Missourians with a half trillion dollars in college debt," Missouri Attorney General Bailey, who is helping lead the legal challenge, said in a statement. "The United States Constitution makes clear that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally ‘cancel’ student loan debt for millions of Americans without express permission from Congress. The President does not get to thwart the Constitution when it suits his political agenda.”
The lawsuit points out that Biden already tried once before to forgive large swaths of student debt but that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that effort last June.
“Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt by the President to force teachers, truckers, and farmers to pay for the student loan debt of other Americans — to the enormous tune of $430 billion,” the lawsuit said. “In striking down that attempt, the Court declared that the President cannot ‘unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.’ Undeterred, the President is at it again, even bragging that ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me.’”
There is no official cost estimate yet for the plan, but experts raised concerns about the already ballooned national debt, which is on pace to hit $35 trillion this year.
“You can’t solve a very real debt problem by issuing more debt,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement. “The President’s previous student loan cancellation plan was expensive, inflationary, poorly targeted, and would have boosted rather than reduced tuitions. This plan similarly misses the mark.”
Critics point out that debt is not “forgiven” or “canceled,” but that the expense is transferred to taxpayers.
“This is nothing but a political ploy to buy votes in an election year,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The Supreme Court already ruled that Joe Biden’s student loan scheme is ILLEGAL. This is not loan forgiveness – it’s debt redistribution.”
The debt forgiveness in question will be enacted through a proposed federal rule, which means it has a lengthy process ahead and could be overturned if Republicans win in November.
The plan would cancel as much as $20,000 in interest for borrowers whose interest on unpaid debt has continued to grow over time, regardless of income. The plan would help those with undergraduate debt who have been paying for more than 20 years and graduate debt paid for more than 25 years.
Those major components come alongside several other miscellaneous forgiveness efforts tailored to specific federal programs Biden has been announcing since taking office.
Biden argued during remarks in Madison, Wisconsin Monday afternoon that for many Americans, their debt is too great a burden.
“Today, too many Americans, especially young people, are saddled with unsustainable debts in exchange for a college degree,” Biden said. “The ability for working- and middle-class folks to repay their student loans has become so burdensome that a lot can’t repay it for even decades after being in school.”
Even before the lawsuit, Biden’s plan to forgive even more student loan debt was taking fire from Republicans and budget experts.
“By ‘cancelling student loan debt,’ Joe Biden is telling blue-collar workers he doesn’t care about them,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote on X, formerly known as twitter. “This is nothing but a vote-buying scheme by the Democrats.”
Signing onto the lawsuit are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
"This plan completely violates the administrative pay-as-you-go requirement put in place by last summer’s Fiscal Responsibility Act," MacGuineas said. "That provision was put in place to require any significant regulations from adding to deficits, but the administration has abused its ability to waive these requirements – which is intended only for regulations that are 'necessary for the delivery of essential services' or 'necessary for effective program delivery.'"
Rod's Comment: Tennessee needs to join the lawsuit. I expect it will.
Top Stories
Tuesday, April 09, 2024
House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Turner says Russian propaganda has “absolutely” seeped its way to Congress, with Republican repeating false claims.
“To the extent that this propaganda takes hold, it makes it more difficult for us to really see this as an authoritarian versus democracy battle,” he added. (link)
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
