Newt Gingrich’s recent criticism of Mitt Romney has landed him in hot water.

At issue is Bain Capital, a venture capital firm Romney ran, which made its money buying up troubled businesses and selling the assets at a profit. Gingrich questioned the validity of that business experience as it relates to qualifications for being President. Gingrich’s comments were labeled as anti-Capitalist and even compared to policies of Democrats and President Obama.

It was argued Bain did the things we advocated for during bail-outs. Didn’t we argue for letting failing businesses fail, be bought by investors like with the process governed only by Market forces? Yes, we did. How then, can Gingrich’s comments be seen as anything but anti-Capitalist?

The answer lies in asking where Romney’s business experience came from; not in simply acknowledging he has some and moving on. The question is “What sort of business experience are we talking about, exactly?”

Near my home is a property recently bought by a convenience store chain to build on. To build the new store an existing building was torn down. The key point here is that the company which demolished the building and cleared the land is not the same one building the new store.

Why? Because the skills and experience needed for the two tasks are very different and, while they may be lumped together under the general label “construction,” to suggest a skilled demolition company is automatically a good builder because it can tear down is readily seen as a flawed premise. Just so with Romney’s appeal to his business experience and Speaker Gingrich’s critique of that appeal.

Romney’s business experience certainly qualifies as Capitalist and Free Market just as a demolition company is a construction company. But his experience is in dismantling businesses, not in building them, creating jobs, putting people to work and the other portions of Capitalism and Free Markets that happen after old things are destroyed.

The President’s job will not be to tear America down like a vacant and derelict building. It will be to fix what has fallen into disrepair; to restore the values and and ideals that drove us to first place among the world’s nations. That was Reagan’s strategy after the disaster that was Carter. He didn’t tear America down or break her up as if some or all of her was past saving or no longer relevant. Instead he cast a bold, bright future of shining hilltop cities with their best days ahead of them.

Romney’s experience in dismantling things, as excellent as it may be, is better suited for an America at sunset; not for a time when it is morning in America.

Some may try to apply my analogy to the political and suggest Romney would be great at dismantling political things such as ObamaCare and the rush to Socialism we are seeing in Washington DC. But Politics and Business are very different enterprises. Skills in one may not readily transfer to the other.

Not even Romney is arguing his political experience better qualifies him for the Big Chair. There is a good reason for that.

If dismantling powerful political structures is the goal, no candidate’s experience compares to Newt Gingrich. He put the Contract with America’s issues front and center and forced votes on them. He led and oversaw the flip of the House from Democrat to GOP control. While Bill Clinton often takes credit for balancing the budget, spending bills originate in the House. Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House during that time. No list of accomplishments is complete without remembering passing Welfare Reform. Again, Speaker Gingrich led that effort.

This is the context in which Gingrich’s comments need to be placed and evaluated. Not the frantic search for an easy sound bite driven by a 24 hour news cycle; but the thoughtful and honest evaluation of the actual skills and talents available to bring to bear on the challenges facing our Republic in the midst of difficult times.

Seen in this light, Speaker Gingrich and his comments and evaluation don’t seem anti-Capitalist or anti-Free Markets at all. In fact they seem wiser and more thoughtful than he is being given credit for.

What of Governor Romney? His business experience, as excellent and as Capitalist as it is, does not produce the best skill set for running a nation facing the challenges we do in 2012. The Governor is a fine man and successful businessman. He’s just not the best man for the job.

I advocate for Limited Government chiefly because, despite claims to the contrary, Government fails miserably at having the wisdom and experience to solve problems in the various economic market segments. For proof, one need look no further than Transportation, specifically Public Transportation.

Since 2006, Nashville, TN has had The Music City Star; a 32 mile long rail line from its eastern suburbs to downtown. Stories run routinely in local media touting the Star’s public benefits. But they never talk about the cost.

One puff piece profiled riders, employees and their Star experiences. How do they afford their idyllic commute? You and I pay for it. Public Transportation does not pay for itself. It is subsidized by millions of tax dollars annually.

In the case of the Star, “Mt. Juliet currently pays $30,000 annually, while Wilson County kicks in $10,000. Compare that to Metro Nashville, which contributes $1.5 million to the train’s $4.57 million annual operating budget, much of which comes from state and federal dollars.” Not only do local tax dollars pay for Nashville commuters, tax dollars from around the nation do, too!

Only about $700K in costs are covered by fares. For it to be self sufficient passengers would pay about six times as much; putting single ticket seats at $12 to $30 and monthly passes at $384 to $1024, depending on which station you use.

A Transportation planner suggested, “… transit pays for about 30-percent of its operations. But a road doesn’t pay for any of its operations, ever. It’s 100-percent subsidized. It’s all through taxes.” This ignores that the Road and Fuel taxes used to fund roads are paid by those who use the roads and not by airline or rail passengers or those who don’t drive.

Increased ridership won’t help the Star. In 2006 it projected 1500 daily passengers after 9 months. 2011′s 1225 daily riders is a record. That volume uses 75% of the seats. The train would need to be almost 5 times as long – and full every trip – to accomodate enough passengers to pay for itself. Assuming we ignore the extra costs in a 500% size increase.

It’s not just here in TN, of course. California is the poster child for how bad it can get when Government is in complete control. Their rail issues nicely compliment the rest of the outrageous Government solutions to problems in the Golden State and elsewhere.

The San Jose Mercury News calls California’s high-speed train project a “$6 billion waste of tax funds” noting this is more bad news for the effort. The state’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office “not only questioned the legality of launching a high speed-train, but also warned legislators that starting construction on the rail line could be a $6 billion waste of tax funds,” according to the paper. It goes on to quote the report as saying it is “increasingly likely that the (initial stretch of track) may be all that is ever built.” Ultimately, the report concludes, the project is “unlikely to justify (the) expense,” according to the Mercury News.

This high-speed train wreck sounds suspiciously like another boondoggle infrastructure project on the ballot for California voters this June: the so-called California Cancer Research Act that’s been organized by a career politician. By raising taxes on overburdened Californians by nearly $1 billion per year, this flawed spending measure allocates about $117 million per year on new buildings and facilities in order to duplicate existing programs. However, the proposition doesn’t even guarantee that the money will even be spent in California! That means Californians could be footing the bill for infrastructure they never even get to see!

Leave it to California’s political class to come up with building trains-to-nowhere and sending millions out of state as solutions for the state’s fiscal mess. This June, let’s hope voters send them a message by voting no on the out-of-control spending that has ruined California.

Back home in Tennessee, let’s hope we learn from California’s bad example and take a clear look at the numbers on public transportation. Despite saving a very small number of people a few dollars and making for nice newspaper stories, it’s a really bad deal for taxpayers. In the name of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we need to find new and better solutions and not just recycle the same old bad ones!

Recently, TN State Rep Rick Womick, at a conference contrasting Sharia Law and the Constitution, said Muslims should not serve in the US military because they could not be trusted. Some in the Muslim community are calling for Womick to be impeached for his remarks.

I find it fascinating that, in the context of a conference on the Constitution, Womick spoke because he believes evidence exists that Muslims represent an internal threat while Muslims responded because they don’t like what Womick said. Seems an interesting clash between Muslims and the 1st Amendment.

Absent from the Muslim response is any discussion of any merit to Womick’s remark. I was present at the conference and have a few observations in that regard.

Conference presenter Frank Gaffney spoke about the Team B II report, a portion of which was entered into evidence in a trial, and which reveals a 5 phase plan by Muslims to overthrow the US government and seize power. These are not accusations. These are their own words from their own documents. If true, it seems a compelling argument for not trusting Muslims in any government sector, including the military. I have to ask the Muslim community if the report is true? If so, are you, too, in favor of replacing the Constitution with Sharia Law and the theocracy it mandates? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?

Then there is the 1300 year old Muslim practice of taqiyya which permits Muslims to deny their faith and intentions when dealing with enemies, Muslim or non-Muslim. They may even denounce Islam and Mohammed and convert to Christianity externally while remaining loyal to Islam and Mohammed in their hearts. Such outer deception and inner loyalty may be maintained as long as is necessary. Given recent history, it is not unreasonable to conclude some Muslims consider the US an enemy and subject to taqiyya. I have to ask the Muslim community, is taqiyya a well established practice in Islam? If so, do you support it? If so, how might non-Muslims believe any oath or allegiance to the US and its Constitution which you might swear? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?

Another presenter referred to Yasir Arafat’s appeal to “Hudaybiya” when challenged as to why he signed peace treaties with Israel. Arafat was referring to a treaty between Mohammed and the residents of Mecca and his later conquest of Mecca. A state of war, or at least open conflict, existed between Mohammed and Mecca. The treaty ended the conflict. Later, following a minor violation of the treaty by Meccan allies, Mohammed returned with a force of 10,000 to Mecca which surrendered without a fight. The treaty is seen by many to have been a ruse giving Mohammed time to get stronger before conquering Mecca. That understanding is consistent with Arafat’s comments. Muslims reject that view, insisting Meccans broke the treaty which justified Mohammed’s actions. I ask the Muslim community, is Hudaybiyah an example of Muslim deception? If not, how should I understand Arafat’s appeal? If so, do you support such tactics? Should this not impact the way Representative Womick’s comment is viewed?

None of these concerns were addressed by Womick’s detractors. Responding to remarks made in the context of a discussion of the relationship between Sharia Law and the Constitution by calling for sanctions against a man exercising those Rights would seem unwise. Especially when the one making them is tasked with representing the public’s interests.

The issues raised are not new. However, to my knowledge they have either not been addressed at all, or not addressed well enough to dispel legitimate questions about the intentions of both Islam and individual Muslims. Womick’s comment is outrageous only if it is founded in hate and bigotry. If it has a reasonable foundation in the nature of Islam and Muslim behavior as revealed in the Koran and the example of Mohammed himself, not only is it not outrageous, it demands investigation by media and citizen alike. At a minimum, Womick should be able to voice his opinions without fear of calls for his impeachment.

I’m curious how the Muslim community would argue for being seen as good Americans, loyal to our Constitution and the Rights of everyman recognized in it, while behaving as a good Muslim at the same time. Failing that, they should gear up for more questions about being Muslims in America. In the meantime, methinks the Muslims doth protest Rep. Womick too much …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

The biggest problem with government is the nature of government itself. It is impossible for Government to do anything except by regulation or legislation. This is both a description of the beast and a condemnation of its behavior.

Thus, if one looks to Government for help the result is predictably a new law or regulation on top of all that have come before. There is no logical end to this process but the consequences of it are comical. Violating your right to Life is no longer the worst thing someone can do to you. If you are murdered because you are hated, your “hate crime” murder is considered worse for you than being plain ol’ vanilla murdered. As has been noted regarding laws passed so politicians could be seen to be doing something, “Sad law is bad law!”

The alternative is Limited Government with self governance according to sound principle and morality as the order of the day. This is a hard argument to make, however, when so many, even on the political Right, see their first option as asking government for the answer.

This is not a theoretical exercise.

Here in Nashville, TN protesters “occupied” Legislative Plaza, a public site used by all for everything from protests to pictures, for about three weeks. Police were asked by protesters to address safety and property rights concerns due to thefts in the camp. Citizens voiced concerns over sanitation, property damage and morality. Eventually, the Governor issued a nightly curfew on the Plaza and police began arresting violators. Protesters dropped safety complaints; switched to 1st Amendment violations and all consideration of the valid concerns of non-occupiers vanished. The ACLU defended the interests of only some Tennesseans and gave occupiers a victory they used to bolster their numbers and resolve.

The problem is that the matter got that far before being easily resolved. I can’t find anyone who believes the curfew was a good idea. But government was being asked “do something” by both sides. What should it have done? It should have answered from principle and not added a new regulation!

It should have said, we respect the rights of all Tennesseans to speech and assembly and their reasonable expectation of services and equal protection under the law. Some asked for police to address thefts while others asked the state to protect and preserve a public Plaza it holds in their name. It should have noted the requests were for reasonable services provided to all Tennesseans at all times; not just those present at a specific place at a specific time. It should have sent police to address the expectation of public safety held by occupiers. It should also have informed occupiers they would be asked to briefly leave the Plaza on a regular basis for inspection and cleaning to serve the expectations of public sanitation and stewardship of property held in trust for all Tennesseans. Government would thus serve and respect the rights and reasonable expectations of all.

Had occupiers agreed, we could have begun a dialogue with reasonable people and an incremental return to being the self governed, moral people which the Constitution was intended to govern. If they disagreed, Government and Tennessee would then have the moral high ground to ask why they selfishly oppose recognizing the rights and interests of all Tennesseans. What we got was an increase of tensions and conflict and little expectation of a benefit to citizens. Not because there was no solution to the problem but because the government solution was to pummel a few citizens who were bent on being selfishly mindful of only themselves.

Living by principle requires wisdom and restraint from government. It must refrain from solving every problem with a new law and recognize that proper and respectful enforcement of laws already on the books will suffice in almost every case.  Citizens must respect themselves and others and practice self restraint and discipline as they exercise their rights as opposed to scoring political points or practicing political expedience.

I am trying to examine my life accordingly and personally bind myself and my activism to this approach. I could use some help, though. How does a people live by the gentle self imposed restraint of principle when so many demand the iron fist of government regulation and legislation? Comments are open … what do you think?

Full disclosure: I have a personal interest. My oldest son, whom I cherish and of whom I am more proud than I could ever say, is a crew chief on a Chinook helicopter and due to deploy for his second tour in Afghanistan next year.

I have nothing but respect for members of the US Military. When duty calls, they answer; putting lives and skills on the line. With them being involved in a few shooting wars, that answer regularly results in casualties. What happens when one of these men and women are shot, stabbed, blown up or otherwise wind up WIA?

The simple answer is they send a medevac helicopter to get you. That simplicity is misleading as there are factors involved which impact how soon it arrives.

It’s not the medevac crews. To them, it doesn’t matter how bad the weather is. It doesn’t matter how many enemy are shooting at you. Nothing matters except you need them to be there 5 minutes ago. The sooner they take off, the sooner they get there, the sooner a soldier gets attention. That’s what they do.

Marine and Air Force medevacs arrive equipped to deal with any situation. The aircraft sport mini-guns and personnel carry weapons. They carry medical gear and their medical training is elite. They play offense and defense ridiculously high above the rim. Michael Yon writes about them in an insightful piece, Pedros.

The one thing these angels of mercy don’t have is a red cross painted on their aircraft.

Army medevacs still display the cross. They don’t have to. The Army chooses to. According to the Geneva Convention, an aircraft with the cross cannot be armed. Thus, for Army medevacs, before they take off, they wait for an armed Apache helicopter to defend them since they cannot defend themselves.

This is not a swipe at Army medevac crews. They are just as highly trained and committed to their craft as their Marine and USAF counterparts. In fact, their unofficial motto is “No guns, just balls!” This is an accusation of malfeasance and dereliction against those who continue to insist on outdated and dangerous policy which puts soldiers lives at risk when seconds matter.

The problems with this policy are legion. It gives the enemy two targets, it takes Apaches away from other combat missions, it adds wear and tear on aircraft, and, most importantly, it puts soldiers lives at risk. It has resulted in the death of American soldiers who waited longer than necessary. Michael Yon personally witnessed such a travesty. He wrote about it in Red Air: America’s Medevac Failure.

If you sell helicopters and parts, this is a good deal. Ditto if your military command wants bragging rights to controlling all those aircraft. If you are family to a soldier in harm’s way, not so much, to say nothing of what it means to soldiers themselves.

The simple fix, remove red crosses and add guns to Army medevacs, is being resisted by the Army. Why seems irrelevant and unacceptable given the stakes. Soldiers need to know help is inbound. Now! Not after 10 minutes; not after 10 seconds but 10 seconds ago!

Please, write your US Congressmen and Senators. Send them Michael Yon’s open letter to the President and the Secretary of Defense. Tell them to tell the Army to take crosses off, put guns on and go, go, go … somewhere a soldier needs that medevac!

Mitt Romney said, “It’s about time … Moammar Gadhafi was a tyrant who terrorized the Libyan people and shed American blood, and the world is a better place without him.” Marco Rubio weighed in with, “… justice has been done today.” Meanwhile, the reports of exactly how Gadhafi died are, in the words of one network, “conflicting.”

The one constant in the accounts I have read is that when he was captured he was alive. A few minutes later, he was not. Therein lies my problem.

I will not defend or condone Gadhafi’s life or actions. They are indefensible. He was a murderer and a tyrant. None of that is in question. What is in question seems to be the issue of  what we do with captured tyrants.

If Gadhafi were killed in a shootout like Saddam Hussein’s sons, I would have no problem. If we locate him in a training camp and obliterate it with a missile, I would have no problem either. Those are legitimate actions in a war zone and are morally and intellectually defensible.

However, when we found Saddam Hussein, a man just as evil as his sons or Gadhafi, hiding in a hole in Tikrit we did things a little differently. Because regardless of the lawless scum we were hunting, it was Americans doing the hunting.

The scenarios are eerily similar. Both men were found in makeshift hidey-holes. Both had members of an entourage or security detail with them. Both were discovered by a group of hundreds of their enemies, all armed to the teeth. Both were found shaken or disoriented. Both were taken alive.

The difference? Hussein was captured by American soldiers. Gadhafi was captured by Muslim insurgents. Hussein got three hots and a cot for a few months, was tried, convicted and executed. Gadhafi was promptly murdered by his captors. This act is now celebrated by GOP politicians as justice and overdue justice, at that.

When did I wake up in Bizarro World? I thought I lived in America. I thought we believed all men are created equal and none may be deprived of life without due process. As frustrating as it is, I thought mine was the nation ridiculed for wounding a criminal in a police chase, spending thousands of tax dollars to heal him, jail him and try him and execute him if he is found guilty. Because taking a man’s life – any man’s life – is the ultimate in serious.

Last month we had yet another national discussion on Capitol Punishment around the execution of Troy Davis. Several witnesses recanted their testimony and we again agonized over the ultimate punishment. Because we are Americans.

So I am disturbed when a man surrenders or is captured and it appears probable he was murdered by those who held him. That is not how we do things in America.

In the end, however, it is more disturbing that two of the most powerful and respected men in American government – Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney – find nothing wrong with the events as they transpired. Or, if you will, are unable to refrain from offering their approval of events the nature of which they do not fully know.

Perhaps such behavior is good politics. But if I have learned anything as an activist, it is that good politics breed bad realities!

The men who murdered Gadhafi do not share our values, our principles or our view of Life and the worth of every man. We may have stood alongside them as they fought a vicious strongman. But we ought to distance ourselves from them. We ought to roundly condemn them. They are as much animals as the man they murdered and by murdering him have earned our contempt and disgust.

The first act of the post-Gadhafi Libya was not to show a watching world they were ready to join it as civilized men. It was not to demonstrate that the freedom from tyranny they have publicly cried out for truly burned in their hearts. It was not to side with an American President who sent aid because their oppressor cruelly treated them in their helplessness.

They showed they were replacing Gadhafi’s tyranny with their own. They showed they pursued mere liberation instead of yearning for true Liberty.

And there are Americans who celebrate this?  Words fail …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Image via Wikipedia

With the “We Stand With Gibson”rally over, I thought it would be at least a week before I’d have to point out the Declaration of Independence’s third “self evident truth” is that the purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of men.

While yesterday’s Americans clearly saw the self evident nature of that truth, too many Americans today cannot. If the “blind” man is a citizen there is a remedy; it’s the law.  A visually challenged citizen violates the rights of another and the government, by means of the law, opens his eyes.

But what do we, as free men, do when the blind man is the man charged with securing our rights;  when he ignores their violation or declares there is no violation at all?

Meet US Congressman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, representing the Wall Street area of Manhattan, site of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests.

The OWS crowd, gathered to protest perceived violations of their rights by corporations, Wall Street, the Free Market and Capitalism is easily described in two sentences. They have no idea who is truly violating their rights as evidenced by their focus on Markets and not Government. Despite their rhetoric, they care not a whit for “rights” as evidenced by their violating the rights of others to make their points.

Asked by Washington Times opinion writer Kerry Picket about violations of his constituents’ rights, Nadler deflected the issue and ignored the Constitution he swore to uphold. Rather than secure the rights of his constituents, he sided with those violating them. Not what his constituents bargained for when trusting him to look after their interests.

In Nadler’s own words:

“ … all of us have to live with expressions of democratic demonstrations … “

“The main thing is what’s going on.”

“I think businesses are being damaged a hell of a lot more by our stupid economic policies …”

It seems Nadler prefers Occupy Wall Street over the actual Wall Street. His constituents should “live with [it]” rather than expect him to defend their rights; he cannot differentiate between lawlessness and “ expressions of democratic demonstrations;” he believes the existence of a behavior is sufficient justification for it, and; as a member of Congress responsible for the “stupid economic policies” he admits damage businesses he is uninterested in doing anything about it.

The rest of Picket’s piece is illuminating as it offers specifics on just a few of the legion of rights violations visited on Nadler’s constituents by the OWS crowd. The same violations Nadler dismisses.

If there is an upside, it is that perhaps Americans will wake to the dangers of enabling bad policy and bad politicians. Not that sound policy has no negative consequences for some Americans. Rather, that negative consequences should be reserved for those earning them with their bad behavior. People like Congressman Nadler and the “Wall Street” he really represents.

On Saturday, Otober 8^th in Nashville, artists and activists are holding a concert and rally to support Gibson Guitar. We’re calling it simply “We Stand With Gibson!” Why stand with Gibson? The short answer is, if I believe in Individual Liberty, I can do nothing else. On to the long answer …

On August 24^th, agents of the US Fish and Wildlife Service ran down the halls of Gibson Guitar. With weapons drawn, they ordered employees away from work areas, herded them outside and later sent them home. They then confiscated production materials, records, and guitars belonging to Gibson.

This was not an arrest warrant served on a meth lab. It was a search warrant served on a guitar manufacturer. A phone call from an accountant with a pocket protector and ball point pen would have sufficed. The feds sent in agents with body armor and automatic weapons.

Arrests? Zero! Charges filed? Zero! Number of pieces into which the rights of Gibson and its employees were smashed? Countless!

The Declaration of Independence declares the purpose of government is to secure the people’s rights. It used to do so with laws to punish those violating the rights of others. Sadly, today government is often the one violating our rights via regulations which criminalize behavior tomorrow which is perfectly legal today. That’s what happened on August 24^th and so I stand with Gibson!

Gibson was raided under the Lacey Act; a regulation from 1900 governing poached wildlife. It is so vague and broad that “…ten years ago, four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes…they were sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment each…” It was amended in 2009 to include illegally obtained plants. The government is responsible to prove someone violated the Act. Even though they have materially damaged Gibson’s ability to produce guitars and its reputation, they have yet to even charge Gibson in the matter let alone prove its guilt and so I stand with Gibson.

Lacey permits even more outrage by government. Private citizens who own, travel with, sell or transport a Gibson guitar could be found in violation of the Lacey Act. Selling a dozen guitars might get you a dozen separate charges with fines and jail time for each! Compliance Specialists is a Lacey Act expert with a guide to help navigate its intricacies. It notes,

…the potential for legal liability falls on everyone in the chain. On an absolute level, Lacey allows for the confiscation of goods from anyone-even to the point of allowing the government to enter a home to pull up a living room floor, rip out the kitchen cabinets or seize Johnny’s new bunk bed. Now, in the real world, that’s just not going to happen, but that’s the potential extent of liability. Anyone in the chain, from the importer to the retailer to the homeowner, and even the trucking companies technically share the risk for the legality of their wood in the product.

Since many things which are “just never going to happen” eventually do, is it bad to be a tad unimpressed with promises they won’t?  I stand with Gibson on this one!

The Left is bent on misrepresenting and politicizing the raid. The NY and the LA Times say it’s about Conservatives ignoring vital issues. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) openly admits it’s a political fight the Left is keen to win. “”I watched what the tea party did with ‘death panels … [they] turned [it] into something completely bogus … We’re still nervous people.””

One environmentalist whined, “…news stories are missing their chance to report on the real issue—illegal logging…” Bluntly, this is a lie. The Lacey Act does prohibit use of illegally obtained wood. However, this isn’t about illegal logging. No one claims Gibson’s wood was illegally logged. India permits the export of this wood in a “finished” state.  The shipment was labeled as “finished” wood. India considered it finished and has written so in support of Gibson. The US DoJ “interpreted” India’s law differently, and rejected the “finished” designation since the final work of turning wood blanks into guitar fingerboards was done in the US. They even went so far as to suggest Gibson avoid future problems by moving the work on fingerboards overseas! The DoJ suggests Gibson might have lied on shipping documents to cover up a Lacey violation. As best I can tell, this is how the whole thing started. This is patently absurd and so I stand with Gibson.

This is the real issue – the one the Left won’t admit. It isn’t illegal logging, the environment or even the Lacey Act. Those are accidents of circumstance. The issue is a federal government that has lost its way and its soul. It seldom secures our rights and too often proves to be the one violating them!

Is it any wonder I stand with Gibson?

Cross-posted from Blue Collar Muse.

At 54, I’m old enough to remember regular use of a phrase I seldom hear anymore but which I have intentionally begun using. I no longer say “the United States.” Instead I refer to “these United States.”  I remember thinking as a child that use of the term was quaint and backwards; as if the user were ignorant. It seems I was the ignorant one. The difference is profound and is at the center of the battles popping up around the country. The issue? Who is in charge; the several states or a single federal government?

“The United States” suggests the nation is a single entity with only one voice; the federal voice.  The states are merely inconvenient divisions of the land mass which must be dealt with when announcing and enforcing rules enacted by the federal government.

“These United States” suggests a view more consistent with how our nation was crafted and with the Founders’ view of how it should function. The nation is not a single voice. It is many voices sounding in a united fashion without surrendering their right to individual speech. It is 50 voices on most issues with a surrogate acting as their agent only in very specific instances.

The “specific instances” are known collectively as “The Enumerated Powers” and can be found in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The Founders’ intent to establish the primacy of the states is further established by the Bill of Rights which pointedly and specifically limits the federal government’s power.

This is clearly seen in the Bill of Rights’ repeated use of some variation of the phrase “Congress shall not …” In fact, one has to wait 124 years, to 1913?s 16th Amendment, before finding the phrase “Congress shall have the power …” in the language of an actual amendment.

The erosion began after 75 years in 1865. There, “Congress shall have the power …” first appears in the Constitution in a subsection of the 13th Amendment. Similar entries appear over the next 50 years. While these first efforts limit the power of Congress to enforcement, they still extend the powers of Congress beyond Article 1, Section 8; increasing the power of Congress and diminishing that of the individual states.

Simultaneous subtle changes in Constitutional language on the role of states further dilutes their primacy. Consider these examples:

(13th Amendment – 1865) Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(15th Amendment – 1870) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. (emphasis added)

The result of this  slow drift is that today’s federal government runs roughshod over its former masters. The federal government’s treatment of Arizona over Immigration and Indiana over Planned Parenthood is a vision of the future if states do not contest the eroding of their authority.

The federal government is not the only villain, however. The states were and remain complicit in the process. Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states. They agreed to the popular election of Senators. The original creators of the federal government allowed the servant to become the master.

The good news is, what the states have done, they can undo. If even a few push back, they can rein in their out of control servant. They can resume their place as the ultimate political authority in these United States.

The push back can be as basic as enacting laws their citizens want and forcing the federal government to sue them to prevent implementation. These cases should be used to highlight the issue of State’s Rights. There are far more serious options available such as refusing to send tax dollars to Washington in the same fashion Washington regularly threatens not to return tax dollars to the states previously remitted by the states.

But “push back” there must be. Or else we consign both our Constitution and our Liberty to a slow death. While it may be possible to find and reinstate truths and liberties thoroughly lost, the superior strategy is prevention. The emergence of the Tea Party Movement and similar grassroots efforts provide citizen support for the struggle. All it will take is for states to remember: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

What did I learn on 9/11? Not much, really. While that’s the “hook” for the post, it’s not what I mean. You see, I didn’t learn these things on 9/11. I knew them all along. 9/11 let me see them clearly.

My pastor teaches character is not developed by adversity. Rather, it is revealed by it! In the midst of crises, we respond, not from platitudes but from what is truly anchored in our character. What I saw on and after 9/11 tells me America is still the beacon of hope in an increasingly hopeless world.

I learned I’m proud to be an American. Some apologize for being from the US. I do not. We are not a perfect people. But neither are we the caricature of arrogance embraced by so many. Each man gets to choose which picture of “American” he holds: the arrogant American or the good neighbor. There’s a reason I choose the latter.

That reason is the Americans who ran into doomed buildings. Not without thought for his own safety. What rational person does not think of the consequences of doing such a thing. No, he ran into buildings despite concerns for himself.

These weren’t merely policemen and firemen; they were American policemen and firemen. As such, they considered the consequences of not doing such a thing. And then they acted, and in most cases, died as Americans have for over 200 years. This behavior, while not expected or demanded, is emblematic. They were not exceptional Americans. They were regular, ordinary Americans.

I learned Americans do the right thing. Some will disagree, pointing to schemes – by a few – to bilk the many of their money with fake charities. They see corruption and selfishness as the norm. I see generosity so vast it became the target of thieves.

Others dropped everything; putting life and business on hold, got in their vehicles and went to New York. Where they would stay, how they would live, what would happen to all they left behind were important questions but not as important as the singular question burning in their hearts, “How can I not do this?”

I learned America is the color blind melting pot I had been taught it was. New York is the quintessential picture of “diversity.” In the towers that day were men and women; young and old; handicapped and able-bodied; black, white and every shade in between; Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheists; rich and poor; Republicans, Democrats and Independents; married and single; gay and straight – Americans. The death that came for them didn’t discriminate and neither did the nation that came to them.

The selflessness that erupted from each corner of America defies explanation if we are a nation of bigots. Bigotry unfortunately exists in our midst. But it is not the norm. It does not define us. We are Americans.

I learned, left to the dictates of their values, Americans make the right choices. Whether giving their time, their money or their lives, the sacrifices made were not driven by government policy or triggered by departmental regulation. The selflessness flowed from the individual character of countless Americans, because they held the values that truly define our nation.

No government agency or political party compelled Americans to act as they did. It was character, conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, that did so. It was respect for the basic right of every man, endowed on them by a loving and merciful Creator, to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness that did so. It was alliance with the values of those attending the birth of our nation, mutually pledging to each other lives, fortunes and sacred honor that did so.

I learned being an American is an honorable thing. I learned generosity and sacrifice, while not in short supply around the world, is only enshrined in the foundation of one country; mine. I learned that I am not alone. Not only am I surrounded by millions of these marvelous creatures known as Americans, I am preceded by millions more. This godly and glorious character, quietly lived out hour by hour and day by day in anonymity around the country and displayed in moments of crisis is my birthright. I have been taught and brought to such a time as this born on the wings of sacrifice and generosity offered up daily for 235 years.

I am an American. That is a good thing. That is what I learned …

Gibson Guitar’s CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, will be present for President Obama’s “Jobs” speech to Congress tomorrow night as the guest of Tennessee Congressman Marsha Blackburn. Gibson, a Tennessee company, has locations in both Memphis and Nashville.

Recently, Gibson has been taking fire from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a Federal regulatory agency, and from the Obama Administration for building guitars and employing Tennesseans. The obvious point here is that if the President is serious about adding new jobs to increase the total number in the country, his first step should not be destroying the ones he currently has!

Says Blackburn:

Maybe if the President spent more time finding real solutions to empowering small business owners and less time hindering businesses like Gibson, we’d see more new jobs being created.

More ominously, given recent remarks by Teamsters’ President Jimmy Hoffa, and considering that it is being reported that the Gibson CEO is a Republican, and remembering that GOP Chrysler dealers were the ones punished by the government by having their dealerships closed – perhaps Juszkiewicz is just the first SOB in the crosshairs …

In Tennessee, access to the Internet can be slow and unreliable the further you get away from the cities. The result is missed opportunities in education, healthcare, and business meaning rural residents are at a competitive disadvantage to their counterparts in cities (10 Ways Broadband Benefits Rural Communities).

When the Internet was introduced to a wide spread consumer base in the late 1990s, it was termed the information super highway. Anyone could access any information from anywhere. It revolutionized the way business was conducted through the rise of online retailers, and it changed how individuals did research for school, work and everyday life. But like the interstate highway system, it took time to build out a network that connects every community in the county. Thanks to the development of wireless technology, access to the Internet was spread further and faster, filling in the gaps where wired access hadn’t made it yet. But now, the information super highway “is not able to accommodate the traffic and needs an upgrade,” says Bruce Mehlman of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

With ever increasing demand for information we need to continue to upgrade and improve the digital infrastructure so that all Tennesseans can have access to the benefits of broadband. One way to ensure the timely and efficient deployment of the next generation of wireless Internet is through the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile which will bring 4G LTE coverage to more than 97 percent of Americans. Fred Congdon, executive director of the Tennessee Association of County Mayors, likened the merger to the “creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, both for its ability to stimulate job growth and spur economic activity.” In these hard economic times, this type of private investment is exactly what Tennessee and the U.S. need to get back on track.

Faster and more reliable broadband internet access means businesses and individuals can stay competitive in today’s global, digital economy. Whether using a laptop, smartphone or tablet, the ability to access information over a 4G LTE wireless network will mean more innovation and greater economic development for Tennessee and the U.S. But without this new generation of broadband access, we risk losing our place as the largest and most innovative economy in the world which is why universal broadband access must be priority one.

Of course, since the current Administration is ruled by the “No good deed goes unpunished!” strategy, this sort of Free Market innovation is exactly what the government will file lawsuits to prevent. Green jobs that don’t exist and which cost millions of taxpayer dollars are just fine. But Free Market innovation and cooperation must not be allowed to flourish. Government intervention is turning the Information Superhighway into yet another road to serfdom. Please, someone wake me up. I must be dreaming …

Progressive rhetoric in the debt ceiling debate holds that if the US doesn’t raise the ceiling it will automatically be in default. This is an intentional lie told for political reasons. It has nothing to do with economic or budgetary soundness. Any default will arise from US actions after we fail to raise the debt ceiling, not simply because we fail to raise it.

But what if it were true? It might not be the apocalyptic event everyone claims. It depends on international response. After all, China has intentionally defaulted on trillions of dollars of debt and the PRC is doing just fine. So much for default being disastrous to a nation.

From 1900 to 1939, China issued bonds purchased worldwide and even recommended by the US government as a sound investment. These were long term bonds of the sort issued by governments around the world; the same sort of US bonds held by China today and which the US is said to be in danger of defaulting on.

Following the Communist takeover, the new government repudiated that debt and refused to pay it. It continues to do so. The American Bondholders Foundation values the defaulted bonds at “over $750 billion to American citizens who are holding full faith and credit sovereign bonds sold to them by the Republic of China. Worldwide, the debt China owes to all bondholders is estimated to be several trillion dollars.”

Despite being issued by a previous Chinese government, the current government of China owes this money under accepted and recognized international law. That law holds that an “… established and widely recognized government of a nation is liable under international law for the full faith and credit obligations of the established and widely recognized predecessor government of the same nation.”

China has practically acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the debt. In the late 1980s it settled some of these bonds issued in Great Britain to regain access to British financial markets. In the late 1970s China settled American claims for property nationalized by it in 1949. Jonna Bianco at American Bondholders Foundation reports that China has insisted the current Iraqi government be responsible for Iraqi debt accrued under Saddam Hussein. Of course, the PRC had no problem with accepting Hong Kong’s transfer to it despite not existing when the lease was drafted. Even the Left leaning Huffington Post and PBS acknowledge that such debt is not easily repudiated. Where there are questions, it is usually how much to repay and how to repay it. But the matter of whether the debt is valid or not is settled.

The US government has made any number of symbolic and meaningless protests in favor of the Chinese honoring their obligations. Other actions by members of Congress are more substantial. To date nothing has been done. Not by the US, anyway. China, on the other hand, has downgraded its US credit rating based on “…the US’s deteriorating debt repayment capability and drastic decline of the US government’s intention of debt repayment.” One assumes the news was delivered with a straight face.

China has intentionally defaulted on its obligations and has no plan to remedy the matter. The PRC enjoys international credit, investment and trade all while thumbing its nose at law and morality. Each time the issue comes up, it boldly restates its intentions not to pay. It simply continues to do business, ignores the protests and expects the world to follow its lead in refusing to address the issue.

Given that, why is anyone in the US worked up about a default that has not yet happened and will not happen even if the debt ceiling isn’t raised on Tuesday?

Speaking of the debt ceiling debate, here’s an idea. Since the Chinese owe US citizens billions of dollars and since they also hold billions in US debt, why don’t we just reduce our debt by the amount the Chinese owe us and pay the principle and interest to American citizens?

That injects billions into the economy without raising taxes, eliminates the need to raise the debt ceiling, reduces US debt, and avoids talk of a dubious default. It’s TARP, Qualitative Easing and Keynesian nonsense rolled up in a plan that puts American interests first, reduces taxes, increases savings and investment and stimulates economic growth all while keeping governmental ideas on how to do all that at bay.

By happy coincidence, the American Bondholders Foundation has a plan to do something quite similar to exactly that.

All it will take is an American government more willing to squeeze the Chinese government than it is to squeeze the American people. Comments are open … what say you?

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

FOR MORE LINKS ON THIS ISSUE:

Investor Alert: PRC Sovereign Bonds @ Global Securities Watch;

Congressional Endorsement of International Offset @ Global Securities Watch;

There is no way to know that today is a day that will make history. A year ago this weekend, life in my city was savaged by a 500 year flood, the impact of which is still rippling across our burg. Almost 10 years ago America woke to a beautiful September morning that saw the sun set on a nation at war. And yesterday, a major chapter in that war was closed.

Even as I write this, news is continuing to break. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind terrorist attacks in the US and abroad, is dead. It is reported he was located in a compound in Pakistan, surrounded by Navy SEALs, given the chance to surrender and killed when he declined the offer. His body was buried at sea to prevent his grave becoming a shrine and a place of pilgrimage.

Most disturbing about the matter is the reaction of so many Americans. I remember the revulsion I felt when I saw video of people rejoicing in Middle Eastern streets because of the 9/11 attacks. I feel the same revulsion at the rejoicing I perceive taking place in my country at the death of bin Laden.

Justice is not a cause for jubilation.

I feel a deep and abiding sense of satisfaction that the man who murdered so many has been found and been held accountable for his crimes. I am amazed at the commitment to justice my country brings to the fight which resulted in the extension of mercy and an offer of surrender to a man such as bin Laden. I feel proud to be protected and represented by the men and women of the various branches of the US military and our intelligence services. Their bravery and professionalism deserves praise beyond what can be granted here. What I do not feel is joy at the death of bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden was acting in accordance with his faith when he murdered over 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and in murdering so many others, from all faiths, in other attacks around the world. I cannot act other than in accordance with my own faith in my response to his death. Christianity teaches that even Osama bin Laden was created in the image of God; he had a purpose and a destiny for his life that God intended even if he did not live it out; he was loved by God enough that Christ died for bin Laden just as he did for me. The part of the heart of God that loved bin Laden as one of His creations does not rejoice that he is dead.

Christianity also teaches that every man has the freedom to choose. That means that despite God having a plan for our lives, we can reject that plan and go our own way; we can and do choose sin and destruction over righteousness and restoration, and; when we do, we accept the full responsibility for our own actions and must abide by that decision. If our actions are sinful and godless, there is justice to face, both in this life and the next. The part of the heart of God that is holy and just does not shrink from dispensing justice. But neither does He rejoice in the dispensing.

It is surreal that President Obama, who blames George Bush for everything, is taking credit for the one thing that George Bush actually did do that remains into this administration – the successful pursuit of Osama bin Laden. As President Bush so quietly and purposefully stated on September 20, 2001, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” Thank you President Bush for your commitment to justice that was strong enough it extended beyond your administration to accomplish its purpose.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Justice has been served. That is a good thing. It is cause for introspection to determine our motives. It is cause for satisfaction and contentment should we find our motives pure and our commitment to justice well served by the events of the last 48 hours. It is cause for motivation as we move forward into the next chapter in facing down the terrorists who would destroy us. But it is not now, nor should it ever be, cause for rejoicing.

We believe different than that. We believe better than that. We are not our enemy. We are Americans.

Tennessee Democrat Jimmy Naifeh, and some GOP House members who seem to have not received the memo that Naifeh is no longer Speaker, attached a poison pill amendment to a House bill last week that would have amended the Tennessee Constitution to forever do away with the possibility of a state income tax.

The TEA, supported by their Labor brothers from a variety of different unions, gathered at Nashville’s Legislative Plaza three weeks ago to tell anyone who would listen that ending Collective Bargaining rights for teachers and public sector unions wasn’t just bad for teachers, it was bad for Tennessee.

In the last month, Tennessee skirmishes have begun in the larger battle for the interests of workers involving a person’s Right to Work as opposed to forcing them to participate in and fund unions which they do not support or wish to finance.

If you listen to Democrats and Unions, what is best for the people and workers of the United States of America is Income Taxes; increased public sector union growth fueled by Collective Bargaining, and; forcing participation in both public and private sector unions by requiring union membership and forced collection of union dues. These things aren’t just good for the people. By inference, they are what the people themselves would choose if they had the ability to do so.

However, to quote Ronald Reagan, “…the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Left to their own devices, expense and choice, how have Americans actually chosen when faced with decisions on those three issues? Michael Barone has a piece up at The Examiner which addresses that very question. Drilling down into the 2010 Census data he finds:

The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two tier society [a large affluent upper class, a vast proletariat and a huge income gap in between] …

The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent.

The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.

The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent.

… states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed.

Slow growth is nice if you’ve got a good-size trust fund and some nice acreage in a place like Aspen. But it reduces opportunity for those who don’t start off with such advantages to move upward on the economic ladder.

So who is really supporting the working man, the ordinary American? As with most Progressive policies,  actual results are very different from what was promised. Progressives then blame the failure of   their worthless schemes on Conservatives. They use that false conclusion to enact even more Progressive dogma. If one looks at the issue shallowly, it might seem the people support the Progressive agenda. But left to their own choice and options to be implemented with their own money and decisions, people overwhelmingly reject the Progressive agenda as bad for them personally and by extension, bad for all of America.

Legislatures in Tennessee and around the country are currently voting on these exact issues. The will of the people is clear as they have voted over the last decade, both with ballots and now with billets. Given a choice, the people are opting for individual and economic Liberty.  A legislative vote against income taxes, collective bargaining and union supremacy in the workforce is not a vote against the people nor is it bad for the economy of your city or state. In fact, just the opposite is true.

If you want a growing, vibrant population and economy for your state that consistently outperforms the rest of the country, support eliminating income taxes, curbing collective bargaining and giving people the right to choose in the workplace.

It’s the proven solution over time and across the nation.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse.

I was listening to some Tea Party leaders recently. They were unhappy some Representatives had not yet made their position on a bill public. They decided to find out those positions and if a Rep was voting “wrong,” to threaten him with a primary challenge.

Disagreements, even among allies, are inevitable. How we handle them defines our relationship’s future. In the aftermath of successful influence in 2010?s elections, some Tea Party activists are choosing coercion over cooperation.

It’s said you don’t truly know a man until you disagree with him. Character is revealed by conflict more than it is developed by it. What will Tea Party choices reveal? Will they choose purity of principle? Will they insist their way is the only way and burn the bridges between them and their natural allies? Or will they choose maturity of method? Will they permit allies to have varied convictions and still build bridges to lasting collaborations?

It’s true that elected officials can be more interested in reelection than good governance. Legislatures can become so insular that votes are disconnected from the constituency for whom they are being cast. All that matters is being there next year to cast more votes. On the other hand, activists can be more interested in today’s results than in tomorrow’s reality. The courage of conviction can become the inflexibility of arrogance. The piece of candy today is the prize at the expense of tomorrow’s bag of candy.

But there are real people on the other end of issues. Where is the profit in winning on an issue while destroying the connection to those for and alongside whom we fight?

My personal goal is a synthesis of the two approaches. Bad votes and legislation identify bad legislators. Yet at some point all legislators and activists will end up on the wrong side of an issue. How should we handle this?

Lives are videos, not snapshots. If a legislator can go from ally to enemy over a single issue, what sort of ally was he really? So, I try to choose allies carefully. In the event of disagreements, I try to give my ally the benefit of the doubt and generally practice private awareness and public silence. If I choose to comment publicly, I keep the discussion to the merits and flaws of the issue. Threats and personal attacks are not options. The rationale here is both social and practical. I can bully my Rep for a bad vote, but why? The Rep I threaten to primary today is the same one whose vote I need next week. Cooperation, goodwill and access are not built with threats as the default option. Like Momma said, you catch more flies with honey …

So what’s a tea’d off activist to do? Reason and facts are powerful. I believe they are the best currency with which to “buy” legislators. It’s easier for them to face cameras and constituents well armed with sound arguments than merely clothed with the knowledge their votes were coerced. Would we not despise them for caving to lobbyist threats to cut off funding? How is caving to our threats any different?

If our position is sound, we should have little trouble explaining its value. We find like minded souls to contact our legislators with the same arguments. We bring petitions, position papers, polls and data to support our view. Then we “Reagan” them; trust them to vote right and verify they did. That gives us a snapshot. We express private disappointment or public gratitude accordingly.

Since we haven’t alienated our Rep with bad behavior, we can engage him on the next issue and the one after that, always following the same pattern. That gives us the video. If it shows a Rep who, not over one issue – but over time, consistently supports bad policy, we don’t threaten to primary him, we actually primary him. Frankly, he’s unlikely to be surprised. We have the evidence we need to justify and implement that decision. Until then, we have not compromised our ability to work with him or to influence him to change.

It’s basic courtesy and common sense. It’s choosing long term results over immediate gratification. It’s a harder path to walk, but the rewards are equal to the effort – maturity of method over purity of principle. Sure, you could take a different road. If you do, don’t be too surprised to find it crowded with bullies busy reading Rules for Radicals. You might also start preparing for your turn wearing the target costume …

In 2007 a Tennessee law was passed, as many bad laws are, in the aftermath of a horrific crime. Johnia Berry was violently murdered. Her parents asked State Senator Ron Ramsey to consider working with a national DNA database to assist in the investigation. Senator Ramsey introduced a bill mandating collection of DNA from those arrested for violent felonies in Tennessee. It passed and is now law in Tennessee and 23 other states.

In one of those “It’s a small world” moments, years later a misdemeanor suspect voluntarily offered up a DNA sample. It was matched to DNA from the Berry crime scene. The suspect was arrested for the crime but committed suicide before trial. He was not identified through any provision of the law, but the connection is close enough that people make the mistake of seeing it as an example of how the law benefits Tennesseans.

This year Lt Governor Ramsey, wants to expand the scope of the bill. SB 257 mandates collection of DNA from all persons arrested for any felony in Tennessee. Connected as it is to the murder of Johnia Berry, some proponents ask “Do you favor the law or do you favor letting Johnia Berry’s murderer remain free?” Others say it’s no different from photos and fingerprints. Detractors frame it via the 4^th and 5^th Amendments and question requiring a citizen to surrender a part of “their person” for a criminal case which might “[compel him] … to be a witness against himself …” not to mention being deprived of his “property” without “due process.”

The bill additionally requires that, in the event charges are dropped or the accused is not convicted, the DNA sample taken at his arrest would be destroyed. This would seem to be an acknowledgment of the bill’s Constitutional problems. If the true bottom line for the sample’s retention is conviction, why not simply delay collection until then? Opponents I have talked to would support the bill if that one change were to be made. I am a member of that group.

A significant number of the bill’s opponents also distrust that the samples are “safe” in the custody of the government. Once collected, it is unclear exactly what happens to them. Given they are due to be destroyed under certain circumstances, it is clear there is some reservation as to the government having them in the first place. As many as 15% of the samples taken may be subject to this later destruction. But will they be merely stored until the case against the donor is disposed of? Will the sample be processed and compared against the national database to see if the DNA matches another sample in the system? Who is responsible for collection, processing, storage, payment and final disposition of the sample? These questions remain unanswered. Lt Governor Ramsey is confident penalties for failure to destroy or for misuse of samples are sufficient safeguard. Others remain suspicious of government’s track record as a watchdog for individual rights.

Such suspicion is downplayed by supporters of the bill. Then one reads the Feds are poised to take a technological breakthrough in genetic testing and expand their ravaging of individual rights by handing it over to, of all things, TSA for implementation. The controversies surrounding TSA and its use of technology and practice to abuse and violate citizens guilty only of wanting to catch a plane is well documented.

There are many questions to be asked here, too. Chiefly, under what circumstances would a DNA sample be legally required at an airport checkpoint? It is my opinion that handing over a portable, high speed genetic testing device to TSA will lead to an exponential increase in the lawless and reckless disregard of individual liberties by this particular government agency. Further, just as with the backscatter scanners, implementing it in such a public and high profile arena will not serve to make us more secure. It will merely soften the average citizen’s resolve to resist the unlawful infiltration of the state into the lives of citizens.

Technical innovation is welcomed by the law abiding. But we don’t sanction violating one law while enforcing another. The pursuit of justice must not itself create injustices and securing the rights of the people must remain the highest priority of government. A good start would be to alter Tennessee’s SB 257 to collect samples after conviction and to completely halt the introduction of portable DNA scanners until after the ethics and problems inherent in such technology have been fully explored.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse

I know, I know … such horrible accusations and I’m a bad person for thinking such evil of my political opponents. No doubt I am a frothing at the mouth, racist, Obama hating, wingnut who ought to be ignored at best and vilified at worst. Except it’s true (video and pics after the jump).

While thousands of protesters showed up in Madison, WI, the state capitol, to protest Governor Scott Walker’s proposal that Public Sector Unions contribute their fair share to fix the state’s budget woes, they did so by skipping work. Schools were shut down and students either sent home or told to stay home for days because teachers simply went to Madison instead of showing up for work. There are no vacation requests, no requests for personal days, nothing … the schools were open and ready for educating but the teachers weren’t there.

Now, they are running headlong into a staple of Conservative ideology – being responsible for one’s actions. With all these days gone and no excuses, along with Democratic Senators having fled the state rather than do their jobs, people are beginning to wonder what will happen to them for being absent from work without permission and for no good reason. In the real world, if you don’t show and don’t call into work with a valid excuse (here’s a hint – protests are not a valid excuse) it’s called job abandonment and is cause for firing.

But the Teachers and their Union and supporters have found a novel way around the consequences of their irresponsibility. Individuals claiming to be doctors have been showing up in the crowds and offering Dr’s notes and excused absence slips for anyone who wants one. Despite requiring a medical exam to get one (I know, I just had one myself a couple of weeks back), the doctors appeared to have a steady stream of business. All one needed to do was tell the person writing the excuses what days you needed to be off. You could even specify future days. They write the excuse and move on to the next teacher.

What else should I call this but lying? I know, I know … Democrats don’t lie. It’s evil Republicans and Tea Party people who say they oppose the President’s policies when they really hate him because he’s black. They say they oppose fiscally irresponsible spending but what they really want is to give away their money to people who they choose, the wealthiest Americans, as opposed to expanding Entitlement programs. They claim to be grassroots and personally vested in the notions of Limited Government, Lower Taxes and Individual Responsibility but they are really only in this because the evil Koch brothers and FreedomWorks are paying them to protest. Like I said, Republicans and Tea Party people are the real liars – didn’t Al Franken prove that by saying so?

So what is the explanation from Progressives and Statists and Unions and Teachers for their behavior? I’m curious. If this is not lying, what is it? If it is not lying for personal gain, what is it? If this is not abdicating one’s responsibility for one’s actions by being far less than truthful, what is it? I’m waiting for the explanation … please …

Of course, what the Teachers and Unions are missing in all of this is the medium to long term view – the bigger picture. They are scrambling to cover their backsides in the short term. But the barn door is open, the cows are out and the world knows the truth about what they are willing to do to escape personal responsibility and attempt to feather their nests at the same time. If they will lie now – over this – and do so in such a transparently selfish manner, why expect anyone to ever believe a thing they say tomorrow?

Of course, this only addresses the lies by Teachers and Union members. It does not address the defrauding of Wisconsin taxpayers who might be on the hook paying for hundreds of thousands of dollars of “sick pay” for days missed with the reason lied about. I wonder what the penalties for fraud are in Wisconsin? Can you keep your medical license for doing such things?

Didn’t the President come out in support of these people? I believe he did.

Democrats ought to be very careful here. Because there really are consequences to one’s actions. Believe it.

Crossposted from Blue Collar Muse.

In the aftermath of the Tuscon carnage; before I learned the name of any victim beyond Representative Giffords and along with hearing the name of the shooter, I also learned I was to blame.

Beyond the ignorant premise that any Tea Partier anywhere had anything to do in any way with such senseless violence lies the sad reality that the obvious has yet again escaped the political Left. While a woman struggles for her life and her husband and children suffer in unimaginable limbo, 5 other families would trade anything for even long shot odds at getting their loved one back. In response, as a friend of mine tweeted, “My Conservative friends offer prayers, my Liberal friends offer blame.”

Instead of coming together in a no-brainer, non-partisan way, the Left has engaged their spin machine sensing yet another crisis that must not be wasted. Progressive Media pundits, bloggers, organizations and commentators seized on what they described as violent language and imagery used by the Right, ignored the use of identical language and imagery from their own side of the political divide and use that premise to accuse my friends and me of driving a man over the edge of societal and spiritual restraint. We wound up and turned loose a murderer.

Deranged and evil people exist. They always have and always will. People used to understand evil and insanity sprang, not from political ideology, but from individual psyches. Unfortunately, the political Left does not. An unspeakable tragedy occurs and, without a shred of evidence, my friends and I are to blame. Not because there’s proof but because Progressives learned The Big Lie technique decades ago and their purpose is not to engage but to destroy.

Still, just because I don’t like the sound of it, doesn’t make it wrong. So let’s look into the existence of violence as a tool in today’s political environment. Where is it found?

As evidence emerges revealing Jared Loughner as a creature of the Left the pattern of recent political violence remains consistent; Progressives are the violent ones in both word and deed. See the Discovery Channel’s James Lee; SEIU thugs doing a beat down on Ken Gladney and Nathan Tabor being assaulted.. Should we really have to bring up the WTO and G8 riots? What about the attack on Prince Charles last month? What about ELF, the ’68 Democratic Convention, Black Panthers, the Weathermen, SDS, Bill Ayers, and on and on and on. But it’s the Tea Partiers who must be watched. Can those accusing me and my friends point to even a single instance of verifiable Tea Party violence?

Even USA Today is telling The Big Lie that it’s only Tea Parties and Conservatives who are to blame. “Gabrielle Giffords shooting fuels debate over rhetoric” references violent imagery and rhetoric but only cites examples from the Right. Were they unaware of Progressive uses of terms like “targeted” and images like crosshairs? Did they miss the BoyBlue post at DailyKos? Is it even remotely possible they are unaware the President himself used violent imagery and rhetoric when he said of Republicans, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”and that a GOP victory would mean “hand to hand combat?” Did they miss VP Biden threaten to strangle Republicans?

I don’t see a call for violence in any of this language. These are metaphors; figures of speech. Tea Partiers understand our political system, like our judicial system, is adversarial in nature. While we will never “all just get along”, we can behave civilly and respectfully when agreeing to disagree. Unless you are a Progressive.

Then it’s all there in “Rules for Radicals”. The point is never to engage in debate; never to search out the truth; never to work together to accomplish goals for the good of us all. It is only ever to win; to destroy your opponent, to ridicule, demonize, polarize and marginalize those with whom you disagree for the purpose of winning – even if you’re wrong. Especially if you’re wrong. Thoroughly violent images and rhetoric if there ever was.

So, sure, let’s tone down the rhetoric. But we’ll need to do so in the real world. There, only those actually engaged in inflammatory rhetoric can stop doing so. The ball is in your court, Progressives. Once you’ve committed to toning it down, to really seal the deal, you should probably apologize to my friends and me …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Public debate is critical to the American political experience. Organizations and politicians take their message to voters, highlight strengths and weaknesses of the issues and submit their solutions. On election day, we see who the People choose.

Integral to the process, yet seldom mentioned, is for each party to be honest and operate in good faith. They must make arguments and quote statistics they believe to be true. They must not misrepresent their opponents or deceive participants. They may later be found wrong, but they may not intentionally deceive. This post is necessarily one of the longest I’ve written. I thought it better to address each point well than to gloss over one or more dismissively.

Joshua Holland, Progressive author and editor and Senior Writer at Alternet, recently wrote “The 9 Biggest Conservative Lies about Taxes and Public Spending”. It should serve as a model of how not to conduct the public debate necessary to arrive at good decisions for our nation. Holland doesn’t seem interested in debate. At times, he is less than truthful himself while outing Conservatives as liars. And he is mostly wrong. Let’s look at Holland’s points.

Conservative lie #1 – “Cutting Taxes Leads to More Money for the Government“

Holland’s rationale is faulty as he combines unrelated facts to form the foundation of his argument. He sources a piece by Progressive author Perrspective, “Meet the New GOP Alchemists”, to undergird his position.But it merely reveals his error.

“…Republican alchemists continue to insist that cutting taxes increases government revenue and thereby reduces the deficit.” The argument is that if deficits exist after a tax cut, then cuts don’t increase revenues. But this requires one to adopt the view that if government receives a billion dollars this year and yet runs a deficit, the problem was with revenues. Nowhere is spending factored in to the equation. In truth, revenues are not the key component in deficits, spending is. For example, if governments only spend the money they actually receive, there are no deficits! Yet, it is quite possible to have incredibly large revenues and still run deficits if spending is increased as well.

Perrspective dismisses John Boehner’s words  from June, 2010, “It’s not the marginal tax rates … [that] … led to the budget deficit. The revenue problem we have today is a result of what happened in the economic collapse some 18 months ago.” Perrspective insists the 2010 deficits result from Bush Tax Cuts, ignoring the TARPs, the housing crisis and Obama’s deficit spending.

Holland wants more than just “tax cuts don’t increase revenues”. He wants a cause and effect between tax cuts from a decade ago and deficits. That’s a logical fallacy known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. If he gets it, then tax cuts cause deficits, not surpluses.  If Holland demonstrated the only cause for deficits is falling revenues, he has a case. Holland demonizes Tax Cuts, not Spending Increases, because it promotes his agenda, not because it’s true. Yet there isn’t even complete agreement among Progressives as to the relationship between the two. The WaPo piece Holland quotes to support lie #9 also observes of the Bush tax cuts, “Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today.”

To be fair, “lie” #1 wasn’t tax cuts cause deficits. It was tax cuts don’t increase revenues. But the cuts Holland focuses on are only the Bush Tax Cuts specifically. He then extends his findings to all tax cuts generally. This seems effective as Bush’s Tax Cuts admittedly are not the strongest argument that cuts lead to revenues. It fails since there are other clearer instances of cuts raising revenues.

But Holland’s accusation is absolute. It’s not that Conservatives are sometimes wrong or right only now and then depending on circumstances to avow that tax cuts boost revenues; it’s that Conservatives are lying to say so. If that’s true, then no tax cut can ever have increased revenues. To debunk Holland takes only a single exception and Holland himself provides it. In “lie” #2, his last paragraph notes, “…go back to the Kennedy era, when cutting the top rate did spur growth and bring more money into the government’s coffers.” Holland can’t have it both ways.

Conservative lie #2 – “Art Laffer’s Famous Curve Supports lie #1”

Art Laffer argues there is a tax rate so high as to cause taxpayers to avoid paying it and revenues will fall. Exactly where that is on the rate scale is not clear. Holland quotes economists suggesting it may be in the 50% to 70% range. Holland disproves his own contention and admits Laffer’s observation is not a lie right after saying it is.

That Laffer’s Curve doesn’t kick in until taxes are high doesn’t make the notion high taxes reduce revenues a lie. It is merely one of many argument illustrating people will do what they can to reduce their taxes.

That Americans in all tax brackets try to pay as little tax as possible is seen each April 15th. It also drives the government’s own tax credit carrots. Laffer need not explain all tax avoidance behavior to be relevant. Conservatives are right. People fight to keep more of their money for all sorts of reasons, including because rates are high. It’s their money, after all.

Conservative lie #3 – Taxes on the Rich Keep ‘Wealth Producers’ from ‘Creating Jobs’

Once again, Holland tries to blend two very different arguments into one. The lie was supposed to be about taxing the Rich. His argument is about taxing businesses. The wealthy and the businesses they typically own or control are two different taxpayers. We’ll tackle businesses here and the Rich in #4.

Businesses with current costs under control, including hiring and CEO salaries, can still be unsure what impact tax increases will have on their business resulting in them adopting a “wait and see” posture.

Tell a business it will have a cost increase and it will have an immediate impact. It will ask, “How do I deal with the added expense?” Just as with government when its costs go up, increasing costs to a  business is dealt with in one of two ways or a combination of the two. It can cut costs or raise prices.

Holland simplistically assumes a business booming now automatically hires workers simply because it is booming. While it can be true, it is a false premise since businesses boom for many reasons. Not all of them result in additional hiring.

For example, if Company A keeps costs in line and can undersell Company B with poor cost controls, Company A may hire new workers. Both companies face the same tax challenge and A is better at controlling costs so A’s boom remains and they add staff.

But if A’s increased costs reduce profits enough, it may not justify a new hire. The potential benefits don’t outweigh the risks. They may opt to simply stay where they are. They’ll still do better than B and the boom will continue without adding staff.

Of course, A could raise prices to offset the new costs. But in the real world, that can lead to an object lesson on the Laffer Curve’s validity. When prices rise, sometimes people don’t buy or don’t buy as much. Bye-bye boom. A booming business which bets wrong can bust and  lose all its jobs, new and old.

Faced with cost increases, businesses often sit on cash to see how things shake out. This is particularly true of increased taxes. Business must understand the reality of what is happening, not merely accede to government’s assurances of what will happen. Taxes are political decisions which add counterfeit pressures to the market. Expanding the workforce is a Market decision and it has to be correct. Blending the two factors is not easy and “Better safe than sorry!” is often the choice. Increasing taxes negatively impacts hiring.

Conservative lie #4 – Tax Cuts for Upper Earners Spur Job Growth

This is related to but very different from “lie” #3. #3 applied to businesses. #4 applies to individuals.

I dealt with this notion a week ago. The short version is wealthy people definitely create jobs with their wealth. Consider that in just 1999, 4 men; Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller and Henry Ford were responsible for 21 million jobs in this country, 16.5% of all the jobs there were.

It is the wealthy, and arguably mostly the wealthy, who create vast numbers of jobs. Behind them are the “wealthy wannabes” who understand wealth is created by serving their fellows well; small business owners who aspire to join the elite ranks one day.

Whether by saving and investing, personal spending or business expansion, the wealthy use their money to create jobs. The best thing we can do for Job Creation is let them keep more of it. The second best thing we can do is let the non-wealthy keep more of their money, too.

Conservative lie #5 – Only Half of American Families Pay Taxes

It is difficult to even dignify this point with a response because it is so patently either a lie itself or evidence of such ignorance that Mr Holland should be ashamed to put his name on it. This one point alone is grounds to cast suspicion on the validity of everything that Mr. Holland might ever say again.

Holland accuses Conservatives of saying only 50% of Americans pay taxes. He says it’s a lie since everyone pays state and local taxes and sales tax.

What we really say is the bottom 50% of wage earners in America don’t pay any federal income tax (actually the bottom third pay nothing, the bottom half pay about 3%), a demonstrably true statement. Moving on …

Conservative lie #6 – Americans Are Taxed to Death

Holland sources a graph of the tax burden of 30 of the most developed nations for 2008. America’s rate of 26.9% of GDP ranks us 26th lowest. So, what’s the big deal with a measly ol’ 26.9%? He wants us to be happy with our low comparative tax rate. But this is America and we do things differently here! At least we used to.

The UK, France and Canada have higher rates. Their rates are high because they give their citizens so much. It is precisely the Socialism v Capitalism debate currently raging in US politics. Holland is fine with a turn to Socialism and taxing others to accomplish that. Conservatives are not.

Greece, Portugal and Spain have higher rates, too. In 2010, these countries are riddled with debt and insolvent despite high taxes. These nations defaulting on their obligations could bring down the EU and perhaps reach out to damage or destroy America. Which is precisely the point.

High taxes should never be a fix for irresponsible spending on social programs or deficit based stimulus. Suggesting we emulate these nations is insane. The US at the bottom of the list means we might yet escape their fate. Their higher taxes are not keeping their countries happy and healthy and may, in fact, contribute to their deaths since Conservatives and Laffer are right, higher taxes lead to reduced revenues. These nations are literally being taxed to death. Holland wants us to be more like them.

Conservatives do say we are being taxed to death. But it isn’t a lie. If Progressives win the debate, we will either cease to exist due to irresponsible spending policy or because what we become is no longer America. Either way, America is dead. And high taxes will be near the top of the factor list.

Conservative lie #7 – We’re Being Killed by Runaway Government Spending

This is little more than a reprise of #6. Holland sources a Progressive group’s report on America’s ranking among the same countries in #6 above, but for spending and for 2004-2007. His argument is that we spend less than most countries on the list on “public spending” and they are just fine.

Illustrative of what they mean by “public spending is the statement, “Of equal importance is how much a government spends, and particularly how effectively it puts the revenues it collects through taxes back into the economy.” Unasked is the question, why is government collecting a penny more than it needs to operate itself and not leaving the rest to its rightful owners to put into the economy?

Why do Conservatives complain so much about government spending? See my answer for #6.

Conservative lie #8 – Conservatives Favor Low Taxes and Limited Government

Holland’s use of “the Right,” “Republicans,” and “Conservatives” interchangeably suggests he doesn’t see or understand the difference between them. Does he also believe the Left, Democrats and Progressives are identical?

Conservatives don’t contend the whole of the GOP favors low taxes and limited government. We are just as mad at Bush and, more recently, those voting us a 35% estate tax and another year of unemployment as we are with Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

The best Holland could say is Conservatives know they are more likely to get an acceptable deal from the GOP than from Democrats. Not that the GOP will always deliver; just that the Donkeys are unlikely ever to deliver. Bush did a lot of good to go along with his lot of bad while Obama and Progressives just did a lot of very bad.

Holland’s own arguments bears this out. He says Reagan and Bush are tax cutters and notes  government spending and size grew under both administrations. He ignores that both men dealt with strong Democrats and weak Republicans in Congress which spent the surpluses generated by their tax cuts. Were there Conservatives in those congresses? Of course. Were there moderate Republicans in those congresses? Yes. We saw it last week in the Lame Duck debacle. In a minority role in the GOP caucus, Conservatives are hard pressed to halt the Progressive destruction visited on America by Democrats and some Republicans. But that doesn’t mean we agree with it.

Portraying Conservatives as the moral equivalent of Republicans is, yet again, deceptive and untrue. Holland knows this. Or he should.

Conservative lie #9 – Taxes on Top Earners Are Actually Taxes on ‘Small Businesses’

Of the 9 statements, I’m inclined to grant Holland is correct in his notion that taxing the wealthy is unlikely to tax small business. I’m less inclined to call Conservatives liars if they say it. Perhaps they’re caught up in the mantra of the moment as the Left was with “gravitas” and “negotiating with hostage takers.”

In addition, there are some problems inherent in this particular debate. From his sources I conclude Holland defines “top earners” as those making over $170,000 per year. That includes a lot of small business owners. Less clear is exactly what is meant by both “small business” and “small business income.”

Holland dismisses multiple income streams as relevant if the earner makes a lot of money from one of them; a media personality with a million dollar network salary and $25,000 in income from speaking engagements. Why is a stand alone small business made irrelevant simply because it’s owner is also wealthy? That $25K is real small business income. The impact of taxes on the people who work for and service it are quite real. That doesn’t change because the owner is wealthy apart from its profits.

Holland’s sources are also dismissive of small profits noting derisively that GOP claims of tax increases hurting small business include as small businesses entities showing even $1 in profit . How preposterous. Conventional wisdom shows most small businesses fail. Virtually all those failures stem from no profit or not enough profit? Many businesses operate at a loss for a year or more before making a profit to be taxed at any rate? Businesses exist to generate profits. And they may expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to generate that measly $1 profit and get their heads finally above water. Only Progressives despise profits for not being large rather than celebrate them for being at all.

The bottom line appears to be that Mr. Holland is making things up as he goes along in order to further the narrative that he desires as opposed to the one based in reality. He is preaching to a Progressive choir and uninformed and lazy Moderate and Indie voters who will recognize the kernel of truth in his statements “Conservatives say …” and miss or ignore the error which follows.

The pity is that articles such as Holland’s take time to research and write. Had he put together a fair representation of Conservative thought, we could have entered into a debate on the ideology and resulting policy from each side of the spectrum. Win, lose or draw, both sides would have been better for it and citizens would have had a valuable resource. Instead, for reasons known only to himself, he chose to present Conservatives in a light that can only be seen as intentionally bad; misrepresenting both their views and their values. Doing so does his own cause no favors and irreparably damages his own credibility. It’s what can happen when men are held responsible for the consequences of their actions. But that’s another post …