In 1988 Al Gore, Senator from Tennessee, announced he was running for President. His campaign and his politics were generally characterized by everyone as being Moderate or Centrist. Gore’s 1988 campaign Wikipedia pagenotes, “According to CNN, Gore ran his campaign as, “a Southern centrist, [who] opposed federal funding for abortion. He favored a moment of silence for prayer in the schools and voted against banning the interstate sale of handguns.””

On social issues, The NYT observed, “By all accounts, the Gore family enjoys a conservative style of life, with religion playing a prominent part. Mrs. Gore has been active in a campaign against obscenity in rock music lyrics that the Senator has supported …” On abortion, ““It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong,” Gore wrote to a constituent in 1984 when he was representing Tennessee in the House. “Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I have an open mind about how to further this goal.” In another letter from 1984, Gore indeed said abortion was “arguably the taking of a human life.” But Gore continued, “It is my deep personal belief that abortion is wrong. I hope some day we will see the outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply.””

This Al Gore won the 1988 Tennessee Primary despite ultimately losing the nomination. What happened to the 1988 Gore? Simple. He became Vice President.”Historically, nine vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency and another five have been elected.” When Bill Clinton came-a-callin’, he found a willing partner in Al Gore for what would become a Faustian bargain.

The office described as “not worth a bucket of warm piss” by FDR’s VP, John Nance Garner, VPs hold little real power. They do not make policy, do not sign legislation, do not command the military or anything else of real power. Gore was promised much by Clinton and did serve as a trusted and senior advisor. However, he had to share Bill with Hillary and his real value came in breaking ties in the Senate, fund raising and taking arrows shot at his boss.

Gore’s years as VP changed him in reality and in the public’s perception. He became the Liberal we know today and voted and behaved accordingly. It’s the nature of the office.

His tie breaking votes were legendary. He voted to raise taxes on Social Security benefits. He voted for subsidies and increased food costs.  His commitment to the Kyoto protocols was rejected by the Senate 95-0. Additionally, there is little doubt that the scandals of the Clinton presidency along with his impeachment cost Gore who steadfastly stood behind his President.

For all these reasons and more, on election day 2000 Gore, who had carried Tennessee in the 1988 primary, failed to carry his own home state. Those who knew him best turned him out by a significant 51%-47% margin. Losing Tennessee cost him the Presidency.

Today that danger faces Romney’s VP choice. Marco Rubio and others are being considered for their value in shoring up a Conservative base largely ignored and sometimes demonized by Romney. That value of a VP choice is clearly seen in John McCain’s 2008 campaign.

But Conservatives considering the VP slot for Romney would do well to spend time also considering the impact on his personal reputation and character such a pairing would have. What issues would he be forced to champion? What votes would he be forced to make? What statements of support would he need to make to which he found himself personally opposed?

I call it the Gore Effect: ruining a political resume and reputation by serving as Vice President. That path may be the surest way to the Oval Office. But it is one a man travels, and a candidate ignores, at his own peril.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

Not quite 30 years ago, Californians approved a ballot measure creating the state lottery. The measure was sold by proponents as a boon for education, with hundreds of millions of new dollars going to schools each year without having to raise taxes at all. Yet, as evidenced by the record setting Mega Millions jackpot last week, that boon was more of a bust as California schools got a paltry $8.67 per student from the $640 million jackpot, according to the Contra Costa Times. Sold to voters as free money for schools, the total proceeds from the lottery today account for just two percent of total school funding, the Times reported.

In a similar fashion, proponents of Proposition 29, the so-called California Cancer Research Act, promise hundreds of millions of dollars to discover all sorts of miracle cures. Yet even a cursory bit of digging beneath the surface reveals not only a massive new bureaucracy with virtually no oversight, but hundreds of millions of dollars spent on things that have nothing to do with medical research. Just like the California Lottery Commission, Proposition 29 will be long on promises and short on results.

As bad as the California Lottery is for schools, Prop 29 is worse. At least the lottery provides some money for education. Prop 29 actually shortchanges schools by over $300 million per year. Buried in the language of the measure is a provision that deliberately circumvents a voter-approved protection guaranteeing schools 40 percent of all new tax revenues. With such legal sleight-of-hand, Prop 29 guarantees all the money raised by this new tax goes straight to career politicians like former State Sen. Don Perata instead of California schools. California schools are struggling and need every extra penny they can get.They’ve already had to lay off thousands of teachers. But Prop 29, in the name of funding education, robs them of the funding the California Constitution mandates they are to receive.

This means politically appointed bureaucrats are in charge of nearly $1 billion worth of tax dollars and are making spending decisions no one can touch for the next 15 years. Meanwhile California schools get shafted out of money to fix deteriorating buildings and keep good teachers employed.

Supporters of the measure promise the money will be spent wisely. This seems to be just another bunch of“trust us”statements from career politicians beholden to the tax-and-spend lobby. California has been down this road before and each time it’s resulted in disaster. Promises from those wishing to stick their hands deeper in your pockets usually turn out that way. That’s reason enough to vote no on Prop. 29.

California voters will find Proposition 29 on their ballot this June.

Supporters bill it as important to cancer research and a sound investment by Californians for California. Opponents highlight some of the more spectacular problems with the measure at their website No On 29.

Among them, Prop 29 raises annual taxes on Californians by $735,000,000 while failing to address the current $10,000,000,000 deficit the state enjoys. The measure circumvents requirements of the state constitution that 40% of all new tax revenues go to schools. Adding insult to injury, nothing in the measure requires a single dime from Prop 29 to be spent in California. It just creates a slush fund on the backs of California taxpayers for those controlling it to spend however they choose anywhere in the country.

Problems are already surfacing and begin with two prime players.

Don Perata served in the California State Assembly and the California State Senate where he was President pro tempore for 4 years. He began his political career by leaving teaching for a seat on the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County. He got out of elected politics and began “consulting” after he lost a 2010 race for Mayor of Oakland.

Ignacio De La Fuente was a City Council Member in Oakland, eventually becoming President of that body. He stepped down when he became Vice Mayor of Oakland in 2009. De La Fuente is a union official serving as International VP for the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. He is also a co-chair of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Joint Powers Authority, overseeing the City’s Coliseum-Arena complex and three professional sports franchises.

What do these two politicians, Prop 29 and the Oakland Coliseum all have to do with one another?

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting Perata paid De La Fuente nearly $40,000 from Proposition 29’s campaign fund while he was simultaneously lobbying that councilman on behalf of a client who wanted to run Oakland’s sports arena. In return, De La Fuente was to help generate support among labor groups for Prop 29. De La Fuente never disclosed the payments on his statement of outside earnings as a councilman and head of the Coliseum authority. When asked whether he saw anything wrong taking money to work for someone who’s lobbying him, he said “He doesn’t see an issue.”

The potential conflict is that Perata is also working as a lobbyist for SMG, one of three companies vying for the contract to manage the Coliseum for the next 10 years. Further, Prop 29 campaign disclosure forms show that Californians for a Cure, the group leading the charge to pass Prop 29, owes Perata’s committee about $300,000. That means that people who donated thinking their money was going to groups like the American Heart Association are actually paying off loans to fund lobbying payments made to political cronies! Per the Chronicle, “Perata also denied any ulterior motives, calling De La Fuente “a close and dear friend” but adding, “I do not see a conflict of interest.””

Prop 29 needs to go. California should Vote “NO” on 29. It will not help cure cancer and it will harm California and Californians. In addition, Perata and De La Fuente should be fired, recalled or whatever else can be done to stop the havoc they are wreaking on their city and state. If those in charge act this badly while it’s just a ballot proposition, consider their actions should it become law and put $750,000,000 in the hands of men like Perata and De La Fuente to spend as they wish.

We all want a cure for cancer. But Prop 29 is not the answer. Nor are men like Perata and De La Fuente. California deserves better. That’s my proposition.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

A friend told me about a Chicago Tribune story, “Obama says draws from Christian faith to craft policy.”As I read it, I realized the challenge is not to realize we have leaders who appeal to God for wisdom and direction. The challenge is determining which nugget or road taken which they credit to the Almighty is actually compatible with Christianity.

The piece notes, “Obama … rarely goes to church and speaks far less about his religion than [former Presidents].” This constitutes, as reported by the Tribune, the President “…listen[ing] to God, avoid[ing] “phony religiosity,” and pursu[ing] “bold action” in the face of resistance or indifference.” Yet the Book advocates for “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” and “be[ing] ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you…”

I’m glad to hear that the President has a Christian faith. But the Tribune reports:

“When he emerged on the national stage, many Americans were uncertain about Obama’s religion and as many as one in five thought he was a Muslim. The president has previously said that although he did not grow up in a religious household, he became a Christian as an adult “by choice.”

On Thursday, he described a 2010 meeting with evangelical leader Billy Graham as transformative to his religious thinking, saying he had “prayed from the heart” at Graham’s North Carolina retreat and frequently thereafter.

“I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment – asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong,” he said.”

Surely it is revealing to know 20% of Americans at first believed him a Muslim while many more doubted he was a Christian. Obama himself labels as “transformative to his religious thinking” an experience from just 2010! I thought Jeremiah Wright and his church were the basis of his Christian faith. Now I find his thinking was “transformed” a mere year and a half ago?

That Barack Obama had an experience in 2010 that touched him deeply at a personal level is a good thing. I will pray for a full expansion and revelation of its import. But his experience is a departure point, not a destination. It was a step towards “adulthood” in the context of “When I was a child … I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

He is not even two years into what the Book calls transformation; “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind …” That is not a year long process; it’s a lifetime process.

A good place to start is a study on biblical distinctions between the actions of an individual and the actions of a nation made up of individuals. Nations are not judged by what they do. They are judged by what the individuals who corporately comprise the nation do and what that says about the nation as a whole.

All individual behavior is voluntary, not compulsory. Righteous behavior forced out of me against my will means nothing. Forcing people to pay for the care of others is not the same as the man who visits the prisoner, feeds the hungry and clothes the naked because he freely chooses to. The Good Samaritan was good as much because he put his enemy up and paid for his medical care and daily needs out of his own pocket as he was because he helped his enemy at all.

As long as Barack Obama’s transformative event does not lead him to repudiate his Progressivism, while I may be happy to welcome him into the kingdom of God as a fellow believer, I am under no compunction, biblical or otherwise, to pronounce all his decisions sound and godly. In fact, just the opposite is true. It’s why the Apostle urged, when speaking of leaders in the faith that they not be a new convert. New converts haven’t been tested and tried near enough. He’ll need time and the grace available to us all.

That Barack Obama had a transformative event at all was news to me. I’ll be watching closely to see its effect. I’m cautiously optimistic. Still as the Book notes, in order to keep myself pure and avoid participating in the sins of another I’ll “Lay hands suddenly on no man…”

Cross Posted from Blue Collar Muse.

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 …