So my friend, Nikki Goeser, begins her story. On April 2, 2009 she and Ben were operating their karaoke business in Jonny’s Sports Bar in Nashville, TN. A man stalking Nikki was asked to leave the bar. He pulled a gun and murdered Ben while she watched, helpless, just feet away.

Denied a Chance: How Gun Control Helped a Stalker Murder My Husbandis Nikki’s recounting of not just the tragic loss of her husband but of her transformation into a powerful and articulate voice for gun rights and advocate for the 2nd Amendment.

Far too many respond to the shooting of innocents in theaters and schools by blaming guns for violence, Nikki places the blame where it really belongs – on the murderers.

She came to understand legislators crafting bad law bear responsibility, too. The gun used to murder Ben was in the bar illegally. Nikki, although a carry permit holder, an Intermediate Handgun Certification holder and experienced gun range volunteer was required by law to leave her handgun in her car. She obeyed the law. The murderer did not.

Nikki can’t say with certainty that had she had her handgun she could have stopped Ben’s murder. She also knows a bad law denied her the chance to try.

In the aftermath of Ben’s murder, dealing with her loss, Nikki kept a journal which became Denied a Chance. She walks us, in poignant detail, through her last day with Ben and the murder itself. She tells the story of the Marine who tackled the murderer and the cop who stayed with her for the longest night of her life.

She tells her story honestly. She sought counseling and dealt with PTSD. Ironically, it was probably this that began her transformation into an activist.

Nashville provides counseling to those affected by violent crime. Nikki didn’t think twice about being armed while taking advantage of that program. The counselor felt differently. Nikki was told she was welcome to continue the sessions only if she left her handgun outside. Denied a chance once, Nikki wisely chose not to risk becoming a victim a second time.

Nikki went beyond asking merely “What happened?” to “Why did this happen?” Squarely at the center of the problem was Tennessee state law. She began to correspond with state lawmakers regarding the injustice of her being denied the chance to stop Ben’s murder.

Nikki connected with Suzanna Hupp, the woman who watched another lunatic murder her parents and 21 others in a Luby’s restaurant while her handgun was locked in her car in accordance with Texas law. Suzanna advised her not to fear standing up for what she believed and assured her such courage would impact others.

Nikki began seeking out like minded people and groups. As her story began to spread, she received offers to speak to various groups and eventually to testify before the legislatures of several states looking at ways to keep their citizens safer. Ultimately she would appear on programs like Nightline, Fox Business with John Stossel, ABC News, CNN, the BBC and other shows. She was awarded the Sybil Ludington Women’s Freedom Award by the NRA in 2012.

Thanks to her tireless efforts, Tennessee and other states changed their bad laws and began the process of protecting the law abiding and punishing those who are truly guilty.

Nikki’s tale closes with the trial where the law victimized her yet again. Despite the “open and shut” nature of the case, it took 3 years to come to trial thanks to the circus surrounding an insanity plea. Finally, however, some measure of justice was done and Ben’s murderer is behind bars for the next 25 years.

Nikki continues her work. She remains a tireless advocate for the rights of Americans to defend themselves in an increasingly violent world. No longer a victim, she has turned her pain into purpose. She will never again be Denied a Chance.

Hers is a story which must be read by every American.

Get your copy of Denied a Chance via Amazon by clicking here. If you would like to contact Nikki for an interview or to arrange a speaking engagement, you can contact her via her website and clicking on the Contact Us link in the top right corner.

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

The house is very dark and very quiet all around me. It is also missing something that has been here for the last 19 years, my oldest son.

Last night, The Much Younger Trophy Wife and I, my in-laws and a gaggle of family and friends gathered together in a private area of a local eaterie and said our good-byes.

I can still see the bounce in his step as he walked away and something in me yearns for the confidence born of ignorance that only the young possess. He was headed on an adventure. He was headed out of our lives and embracing, in so many ways, the very beginning of his own. He was leaving his past and headed for his future. He’d joined the US Army and was reporting for duty.

The parking lot around us had just a smattering of cars. The loading area where we dropped him off seemed filled with all the government vans ever purchased. The hotel housed a number of young men and women on their last night as civilians. I supppose that’s technically not true since they had all already signed their names and raised their hands, pledging to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic a couple of days before. But it’s how I saw it.

My son had met another young man from Clarksville at MEPS. His family had already dropped him off and returned home. He had nothing to do for the several hours he had left and so my son brought him along for the evening. The other young man’s story was similar. He was young and headed off for his own adventure. He talked about his service, his plans for the future and how the Army was helping achieve those ends. He shook my hand and thanked me for the evening and promised to keep in touch and to visit when he finished up Boot Camp and school. He called out to my son that he’d see him inside, tossed a small gym bag over his shoulder and went in.

My son leaned in the door of the van and hugged his siblings. I could hear him quietly answer a question from his younger brother and trade a couple of last jabs with his oldest sister as I made my way around the back of the van and met him and his mother on the other side. I watched him hug his mom. I thought to myself that she was doing remarkably well under the circumstances. Then it was my turn. We hugged and all of the advice I’d given him along with that of his mom and friends ran through my head. Had he really listened? Would he remember it all? All too soon, the hug was done and he slung his backpack over his shoulder and followed his friend.

It’s amazing how little they let you take. A change of clothes, some basic toiletries, a Bible if you’re so inclined and not much more. I guess it’s true that if you need it, the Army will issue it to you so there’s little use in bringing anything along. Besides, the really important things he had to take he was taking with him anyway. His values, his beliefs, the courage of his convictions, his hopes and his dreams. His heart and his mind. Far too big and far too precious and valuable to entrust to just a backpack.

As I watched him walk away, I was aware of a number of other young men crossing the parking lot, heading towards the lobby door. I ran over the last few hours with my son and the last couple with his new friend. In my mind I listened to them talk and watched them carry themselves. I heard their dreams and caught just a glimpse of the men inside them stretching to fill a space that was still mostly boy. I watched the others streaming towards the hotel in small groups – chatting, laughing, trading insults and forming bonds. They all seemed tall and strong and purposeful. There weren’t any slouches. There weren’t any shuffling, scuffling feet as if they were suddenly afraid or unsure. There wasn’t any braggadocio either. No chest pounding or foolish boasting.

They were a new crop of infantrymen, MPs, tankers, pilots, mechanics, cooks and clerks. They joined so many others stepping into a 200 year old, long, green line filled with boys and men. I wondered at all their stories and what the future held for them. I mentally shook my head at all the details in what they were leaving behind and what their futures held. I wondered if their service would be 4 years or 20 or more and hoped they’d all make it safely to the other side regardless.

And I thought of those who feel sorry for our young men and women who choose this road. The people who think these younglings are dupes; ignorant pawns to be pitied and warned off this particular path. Those who are convinced they are deceived and will be betrayed by the country whose call they are answering and by the personal dreams they are following.

As I watched my son stride off, having said his farewell, I was struck by the fact that he never looked back. I tried and failed to remember if I had when my parents dropped me off at the bus station to head off to college. I wondered what they felt if I had. I wondered what they felt if I hadn’t.

What I felt, last night and now, was an incredible mix of emotions. I didn’t cry then although I’m weeping as I write this. I’m scared – what parent isn’t at this time. I’m concerned – did he make the best choice? Could he – should he have done something else? A different MOS or even a non-military future? A touch of fatalism – it’s too late now, the choice is made and besides, he’s a free moral agent and over 18, the choice isn’t mine.

Pride! Enormous, swelling pride! Others are content to stay at home and enjoy the precious fruit of liberty acquired for our citizenry by such as my son! Others advise we run from this particular fight, my son is running towards it!

At some point in the evening, I heard someone say to my son the words that I’ve said to many a stranger in the mall, at church and on the street – “Thank you for your service to our country!” and I came as close as I ever did to publicly losing it. Pride! Enormous, swelling pride! And one more thing … I’m more than a little envious …

Thinking that you’re in good company in that line … you’ve joined a band of brothers and the company of men … I love you with all my heart and could not be more proud … I’ll see you again in just in 9 weeks … but for now, sitting in the dark and the quiet, filled with emotion and weeping a father’s tears – I’ll tell you good bye again … my life – my soldier – my son …

Grassroots reaction was both swift and pointed.

Grassfire.com wrote, “Sen. Harry Reid’s gun-control legislation has cleared the first hurdle … bringing the creation of a national gun registry and the outright confiscation of your firearms closer to reality.”

The TN Campaign for Liberty wrote, “After having dinner with President Obama last night, Senator Lamar Alexander then voted this morning to advance Obama’s gun control scheme.”

Listening to the critiques one might assume these Senators are, even now, fueling up the black choppers and SUVs to dispatch them for quiet conversations with Americans about their guns.

But what did they do, exactly?

They did not vote for a bill that infringed on the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans. They voted to begin debate on a bill that would infringe on the 2nd Amendment Rights of Americans. Support for having the debate is not the same as supporting the bill.

For example, Grassfire.com notes both the NRA and the ACLU believe the Toomey-Manchin bill is unconstitutional. This is a powerful fact which deserves attention. There are voices respected by both sides of the political divide opposing the bill.

However, a letter issued by Chris Cox of the NRA stating they would negatively “score” cloture votes on the issue was misread by many. The vote in question is not today’s vote but an upcoming cloture vote needed to move the bill to an actual vote. Even the Lefties at Slate got that one wrong. Bottom line is that while the NRA is opposed to the bill, they are not beating up Senators who voted to debate it.

And neither am I.

There are any number of folks eager to have this debate; eager to have Democrats and liberal Republicans explain how what they are doing passes constitutional muster. They want amendments and recorded votes for later use against 2nd Amendment haters and gun detractors. Some of those folks voted for cloture yesterday to make that reality possible. That does not mean they will vote for a necessary second cloture vote to close debate and move to voting for passage or defeat on the actual bill.

In fact, some Senators voted for cloture to open debate while remaining committed to opposing Toomey-Manchin and the ongoing assault on the 2nd Amendment.

Oklahoma’s Tob Coburn is one.

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is another. He said, “I’ll examine each amendment to determine whether it strengthens or infringes upon our Second Amendment rights … The Toomey-Manchin proposal to expand background checks in my opinion doesn’t meet that test and I will vote against it.”

So is Tennessee’s Bob Corker who said, “I don’t understand why any senator wouldn’t want to debate these issues, but in the end, I will not support any legislation that violates our Second Amendment rights.”

These Senators voted to begin debate. They were not signalling their support for the measure being debated. They certainly don’t seem to be “advanc[ing] Obama’s gun control scheme.”

It may be that when it comes time to vote on the actual bill that one or more of them will vote for a bad piece of legislation. If they do, I will be the first to call them out on it. But this is not that vote. Nor can it be used to predict a future vote.

For that, we should watch the debate process, note the amendments offered, the questions asked, the follow-ups and the positions staked out. Eventually we will need to watch a cloture vote – the one to close debate. If that one passes, no sure thing as many do not, the actual vote on the measure will be the defining one.

To now excoriate Senators for voting to do what the Senate is supposed to do – consider and debate – seems also to be bad behavior. I cannot and will not condone it or participate.

That having been said, I’m sure there are any number of my friends who will disagree with me. I look forward to your thoughts in the comment section.

Ken Marrero

The Blue Collar Muse

Some friends and I were talking about this very thing. How is it so many adults today actually -fear- guns. Not the people who might hurt them with it but the object itself. Clearly they don’t understand firearms.

We shared our experiences and how they shaped our thinking today. I thought to share a couple of my stories with you.  Perhaps if more people have positive experiences early on things will be different.

It started with bottle rockets; a gateway firework if ever there  was one. After stern adult warnings, we stopped shooting them at each other. For a while, anyway. We began tossing them in the air after lighting the fuse. Until someone made one spin in the air like a baton. Imagine the possibilities! Then one ignited and shot right back at us! As that was not much different than actually shooting at each other, we just went back to that.

This, when we were not laying bottle rockets in a old piece of gutter we found and, using crude elevation and rudimentary Kentucky windage, trying to hit the chimney on a neighbor’s roof. When the cops arrived, there were spent bottle rocket sticks laying in plain sight on the roof.  It wasn’t a raid. No arrests were made. They shook their heads and told us not to do it again since we could catch the roof on fire. We had honestly never thought of that.

All this when we were not creeping around in fields of tall grass in the dark throwing lit fire crackers at each other like grenades.

But my best memories of shooting are tied to model cars and ships.

With the cars, we heated up a knife blade and, after putting the wheel on, flattened the end of the axle. The wheel was on AND would turn. With the model finished, we would roll it down a hill and shoot BB guns at it. By then we had learned the hard way to all shoot from the same side of the road. Bobby DeNiro in “Ronin” had nothin’ on us!

Which brings me to “the boat!” They used to make models of US warships you could put a battery in. It would float and the screws would turn to power it. We built one.

On THE day, before we put it in the water, we smeared some model glue on the superstructure and fixed a cherry bomb inside the hull. We hooked up the battery, put the superstructure on, lit the glue on fire and set the boat in a pond. Scampering around to get a right angle on our shots we were awestruck.

We saw an honest to God, US warship on fire, under power and streaming thick, black smoke as it steamed across the pond. We started firing and the BBs hitting the water recreated scenes from “Sink the Bismarck” with geysers of water spraying up around it.

My future ex-brother-in-law squeezed off a perfect shot and blew the bow off the boat which was then driven under water until it disappeared – spouting flames and smoke and leaving an oily residue behind on the water’s surface. It was AWESOME …

Did I mention we put a cherry bomb in it? Or that cherry bomb fuses are waterproof? Just before submerging, the fire must have hit the fuse because a moment after the boat hit the inky depths of Davy Jones locker, there was an ENORMOUS underwater explosion! We went crazy!! It was pure snakes, snails and puppy dog tails!

We spent a couple of years and a small fortune trying to do it again. No joy. But guns and fireworks? We were hooked and these remain fond memories. As we aged we moved on to .22s, 12 gauges and .45s. But over 40 years later the foundation remains.

Today, I don’t fear guns. They are work tools or a wonderful hobby. Perhaps if people spent time building memories instead of tearing down legacies there would be more – you know – diversity and tolerance.

But as long as gun laws are made by those who fear guns and not those who understand and appreciate them, Liberty is in jeopardy.

Ken Marrero

The Blue Collar Muse

Attacks on these, most notably property rights, are not infrequent at all. In fact, it seems there are more and more of them every day. Amazingly, they all find supporters in legislatures – state and federal – to champion the erosion of respect for property rights.

The most recent instance of such actions on the part of legislators is taking place in Tennessee, Florida and several other states around the country. At issue is the question of who owns the tickets we all have purchased to concerts, plays, sporting events and the like.

Recent Zogby polling found 84% of Tennesseans and 76% of Floridians believe that a person who buys a ticket owns that ticket. As such, he has the right to use, sell, give away or donate what is his. Pretty basic stuff. Enter ticket sales mogul TicketMaster. They disagree.

The crisis TicketMaster doesn’t want to let go to waste is scalping. They are horrified someone might buy a $25 ticket from them and re-sell it for $250. This is such a huge problem around the country that TicketMaster and local venues have proposed legislation in several states which they say will fix the problem. Except that it doesn’t. In addition, it grants TicketMaster a competitive advantage over other businesses by legislatively granting them a market share and segment they did not earn and do not deserve.

In Tennessee it is the badly named “Fairness in Ticketing Act,” HB 1000. In Florida it’s HB 1353. Both of these bills propose fixing scalping by making TicketMaster – usually the original seller of the ticket – ALSO the only entity able to resell a ticket. This destroys business developed and competitively earned in the marketplace by companies like EBay and StubHub and hands it, without any effort on its part, to TicketMaster.

This isn’t preventing scalping. This is government picking and choosing winners in the market. If I may be so bold, given the definition of scalping that most people use – selling a ticket for more than face value – I have to ask what the problem with that really is? Isn’t “Buy low. Sell high!” something of an American maxim?

The real problem – the one which actually violates the rights of ticket sellers, venues and performers alike – and, as such should be addressed by government under the Declaration’s statement that “to secure these rights government was instituted among men” is counterfeit tickets. This is not addressed at all by any legislation sponsored by TicketMaster.

Neither is the notion of TicketMaster as the biggest scalper of all! Nashville’s NewsChannel 5 investigative reporter Phil Williams revealed that of 14,000 tickets for a recent Justin Bieber concert, only 1,000 were made available to the general public. 13,000 were held back by TicketMaster to distribute to suppliers, vendors, credit card companies, etc. If 10 tickets were given to a company that does $10,000 in business with TicketMaster, those $25 tickets just became worth $1,000 each. So much for opposing scalping.

Nor does the bill address other issues the public might have such as TicketMaster allowing some resellers to cut in line electronically. Ever wonder how a 15,000 seat concert could sell out in 8 minutes leaving fans who waited all night outside the window without a ticket? TicketMaster lets some folks cut in line over the Internet and buy hundreds of tickets at a time for resale. But as long as TicketMaster gets to sell them and resell them and control the market, what do they care? They make money on every sale.

Whether you live in Tennessee, Florida or another of the states in which this is an issue or may become one in the days ahead, stand up for your rights. Because you will be the big loser if TicketMaster is the only vendor allowed to resell tickets.

As I wrote at Blue Collar Muse, “We’ve all enjoyed a concert due to a friend’s generosity. Or seen the big game from our employers’ or clients’ skyboxes. Maybe illness or a scheduling conflict means we got tickets to the hottest play in town. Who hasn’t bid on silent auction tickets hoping to score a great deal?”

None of that happens if legislators, acting on behalf of TicketMaster, steal your property rights. Tell them to stop!

Ken Marrero

The Blue Collar Muse

I chose Dunkin’ Donuts, a company Liberals highlighted in a recent email campaign as only paying its workers the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

A web search for my Zip Code showed 6 stores, all open at least 16 hours daily. For the post I’m assuming 16 hour days per store and just 1 worker per 8 hour shift. The company website says there were 7015 US stores at the end of 2011.

The $2.85 hourly increase in question, $7.25 to $10.10, adds $45.60 to a store’s daily cost of business. Over 7015 stores, that’s $319,884 daily, $2.24M weekly and $116.76M a year.

Add 8.5%, or $9.92M, for employee costs to get a yearly increase of $126.68M.

2011′s net profit for the corporation was only $34.4M. This wage increase puts the company in a $92.28M hole at the start of 2012; well over 2.5 times 2011 profits. To compensate, the company needs $1.7 billion in sales with the same profit margin and no other increased costs. By way of comparison, total sales corporate wide, not just US sales, were only $628.2M for 2011 and that in a 53 week period.

Clearly, a $2.85 increase depends on drastic operational changes and unrealistic growth projections. Yet if Democrats win, that’s exactly what will be forced on American businesses.

What can they afford? 7015 stores generate 40,967,600 annual man hours. Applied to profits of $34.4M, that allows an $0.84 raise.

Except they don’t have $0.84 either. We haven’t talked about corporate staff raises yet.  Or store management. That takes from our $0.84. So do natural increases in costs for everything from coffee to landscaping. There are all manner of expense increases. Obamacare, anyone?

It doesn’t allow for maintenance. But what do well paid workers care about broken equipment or unsafe workplaces. It doesn’t pay investors more either although I suppose only workers deserve raises.

Even if we successfully juggle all of this, $0.84 is only break even. What about future raises and expansion? Shouldn’t there be profits to ensure the company stays healthy and jobs are there next year?

Of course, they could raise prices; make customers pay more tomorrow than today. But Econ 101 teaches raising prices reduces sales leaving the company to meet higher costs with slumping or static revenues. Or they could cut hours. But that reduces revenue AND gives fewer better paid hours to employees.

Space and time prevent extrapolating all the possible scenarios.

All because Liberals decided 100% of workers deserve a “living” wage. And they’ll turn the entire economy upside down to force that outcome regardless of consequences.

And consequences there will be. Remember when Liberals decided 100% of Americans should own a home? We got the Housing bubble and its burst. They decided 100% of Americans should have a college education, too. We got graduates with crippling debt, worthless degrees and no jobs.

Finding the right balance between today and tomorrow, profit and loss, growth and stagnation – is an art best practiced in the Marketplace, not legislative chambers.

Sometimes that balance means raises. Sometimes not. Sometimes it means starting wages are higher. Sometimes not. It also means companies like Dunkin’ Donuts aren’t screwing anyone. They are treating everyone – customer, worker and investor alike – with respect and fairness. All in all, the reality is the Market does a pretty good job when we stop passing laws that force counterfeit and unpredictable pressures on it.

I don’t know exactly how much Dunkin’ Donuts can afford. Whatever that figure is, it won’t be the same as McDonalds or the YMCA. It’s not a “one size-fits all” proposition. I’m impressed that Dunkin’ Donuts finds a way to give raises at all. But it’s in their best interests to meet the needs of those customers, workers and investors. If there’s a way, I trust them to find a way to make it work.

The Liberal way to self improvement doesn’t work. Liberals have demanded and received their path to a “living wage” for years. They’re still demanding it because they haven’t accomplished the goal. They never will. Prosperity doesn’t work like that. Maybe they should stop fixing what isn’t broken; stop forcing others to implement a vision they cannot accomplish themselves.

At the same time, responsible and moral people have promoted hard work and sacrifice and brought more success and prosperity to more people than any Liberal could imagine.

This isn’t happening in a cave. It’s easily verifiable. Go see for yourself.

Resist Liberal lies. Refute Liberal logic. Live free …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

We’re familiar with many of these. Vetoes and their override is a well known example. Another is Presidential appointments wherein the President appoints a person to a position but the Senate must confirm the appointment.

While the Senate’s ability to deny a President his choice is a power that often frustrates those in the Oval Office, and while it is often abused – particularly, but not exclusively, by Democrats – it remains a powerful check on Presidential power.

That is until Friday, August 3, 2012 when the US House in a “roll call” vote chose to reduce the number of Presidential appointments subject to Senate confirmation. The vote was the House vote on S679 from 2011 where the US Senate voted 79-20 to do the same thing.

The original Senate bill was introduced by NY’s Chuck Schumer and TN’s Lamar Alexander was a co-sponsor. TN Senator Bob Corker, while not a co-sponsor, was one of the disappointing 79 “Yea” votes last year. Other GOP Senators of note supporting the bill were Scott Brown, Dick Lugar, John McCain, Rob Portman, Jeff Sessions, John Thune and Pat Toomey. No Senate Democrat opposed the bill and among GOP Senators opposing the bill were Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Dean Heller, James Inhofe, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

The Tennessee House delegation was much better. Only Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper and Stephen Fincher voted for the bill. Marsha Blackburn, Diane Black, Jimmy Duncan, Chuck Fleischman and Phil Roe all opposed the measure while Scott DesJarlais did not cast a vote.

Among the 95 House Republicans supporting the bill were Eric Cantor, Jason Chaffetz, Jeff Flake, Jeb Hensarling, Duncan Hunter, Darryl Issa, Adam Kinzinger and Paul Ryan. Only one Democrat voted against the bill joining 115 GOP House members including Justin Amash, Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert and Allen West.

The final vote total was 261-116 with 54 present and not voting. Four members, including John Boehner, were evidently not present and did not vote. If 43 GOP yes votes had gone the other way, the measure would have failed.

The bill’s purpose is explained as a streamlining measure. Most of the positions now exempt from confirmation are not overly visible or important ones. Still, New American reports,

Dozens of key management positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and Homeland Security (including the treasurer of the United States, the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness, and the assistant administrator of FEMA) will now be filled by presidential edict, without the need of the “advice and consent” of the Senate …

You can see the whole list of positions here.

There are several troubling questions and aspects in the bill. Why would any legislator, regardless of party, freely surrender authority and responsibility given to him by our Constitution? If there are backlogs and departments without leaders, why was this solution adopted? For example, why not fold leaderless departments into other departments? Why not do away with them altogether? How many Assistant Secretaries does our government actually need, after all?

Most importantly, this is a legislative end around to subvert a Constitutional requirement. The “Appointments Clause” in Article II, Section 2 is the basis for the Senate confirmation process. There is no excuse for this “problem” to be solved in this way. If the issue is that portions of government have grown too big to be handled in the Constitutional manner, then arguably the solution is to cut the size of government, not reduce the authority of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, virtually every Democrat at the national level, and far too many Republicans, disagree.

It gives one pause. These legislators, especially Republicans, are the ones we are counting on to do things like repeal ObamaCare, keep our nation safe and secure our rights. If they so cavalierly discard Constitutional requirements and surrender Constitutionally bestowed responsibilities in minor areas, are we really sure they are the right folks for the big jobs?

There are lots of explanations. None cast the TNDP in a positive light.

The TNDP said, “The only time that Clayton has voted in a Democratic primary was when he was voting for himself,” implying Clayton isn’t really a Democrat or at least not Democrat enough for long enough.

Tennessee’s Secretary of State website shows Clayton ran for Senate as a Democrat in both 2008 and 2012. One assumes he has been voting for himself – and as a Democrat – for years.

ABC reports an organization Clayton belongs to, Public Advocate of the United States, said Clayton, “… actively opposed every Republican nominee for President during his adult life.”

In a Tennessean video Clayton says he’s a Democrat, has supported Democrat candidates and has only voted for Democrats as an adult.

Any damaging youthful indiscretions with the GOP remain unreported so far. Perhaps they’ll be released as an October surprise. Nice to know there’s a probationary period to be a Tennessee Democrat. I wonder how long it takes?

Rather than take responsibility, in a stunning move, the TNDP blames Democrat voters! ”Many Democrats in Tennessee knew nothing about any of the candidates in the race, so they voted for the person at the top of the ticket.” It seems they believe their voters aren’t smart enough to vote well so their choices must be undone by the party.

Amazingly, the TNDP also blames their own candidates! Nooga.Com reports, “Before the election, we had heard some of this stuff about him, we just didn’t think he had that much of a shot,” [TNDP spokesman Sean] Braisted said. “This is a problem with Tennessee’s ballot … Most of the candidates were just crackpots.”

The real reason the TNDP threw their guy under a bus is because he dared to break with sacred Democrat dogma. Whatever else Clayton believes, this story broke with coverage by Mother Jonessmearing Clayton as an anti-gay bigot for believing marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. While other positions of Clayton are noted around the Internet, the main objection is, as the TNDP presser’s only explanation for its action notes, “Mark Clayton is associated with a known hate group …”

Which brings us to the TNDP’s self immolation coup-de-grace.

The day before the election, the Nashville Business Journal ran a piece titled Chick-fil-A and the gamble of companies weighing in on controversy in connection with the impromptu and informal Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. The writer warns CEOs, “When a company’s top decision maker speaks publicly about something, the lines blur between a personal view and the company’s stance.”

This is even more applicable to politicians. The insight is completely lost on the TNDP.

The Chick-fil-A dust-up exploded not when the owners stated they held a traditional view of marriage. It exploded when Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino, mayors of Chicago and Boston – and Democrats – weighed in on the controversy to disrespect those holding such views.

The insult to their values and faith prompted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans to publicly side with the Cathys, the owners of Chick-fil-A.

Well … the entire country except for the TNDP leadership. Just two days after that public declaration the TNDP used the exact issue as the justification for publicly disavowing their candidate who shared it along with almost 50,000 Tennessee Democrats who voted for him.

If the TNDP wants to advocate for gay marriage, fine. I disagree, but it has the right to have its say and believe what it will. But I would expect it would know how out of touch with the mainstream its views are. If it doesn’t, I would expect something like the Chick-fil-A event to get its attention.

But when your mascot is a jackass …

Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse.

So why the clamor for “tougher gun laws” after a high profile incident like Aurora, CO?

In part, it’s scale and location. Sabotage a car so it crashes and it’s reported locally. But set off bombs on trains in Madrid? Poison your spouse and it’s a piece in the local paper. But release sarin gas in the Tokyo subway? If a Chicago banger kills an infant in a drive by, it might not even make the front page. But kill 12 in a suburban theater?

Lawful people try to make sense of tragedy. We do things for reasons and want to understand why the lawless do what they do. But the lawless don’t follow rules or laws; they’re lawless. They may also be truly insane or duped by idealogues or something else. We may even learn their reasons eventually. But having an explanation and understanding a motivation are not the same.

What’s important is to recognize that whatever else they may be, they are lawless. And once one realizes laws don’t influence the lawless, then it follows that trying to prevent any behavior by force of legislation is foolish. As is often said, one cannot legislate morality.

It’s the nature of laws.

There are only two types of law; punitive and prohibitive. Punitive laws are moral and prescribe a punishment for violating the rights of another. We don’t have laws making murder illegal, for example. Instead, we have laws for what we do to you if you murder.

Punitive laws are regarded as moral and just by almost everyone. Who doesn’t understand it’s bad if someone steals from us or kills us. The lawful, because they are lawful, are not impacted by these laws. Their morality, embodied in the law, keeps them lawful and the issue of punishment isn’t ever really an issue.

But the lawless, by definition, aren’t deterred by law – moral or otherwise.

Therein lies the issue. Moral laws don’t keep the lawful on the right path or keep the lawless from the wrong one. They don’t control behavior because they can’t. No law can. Control is a personal, internal matter. Which brings us to prohibitive laws.

Prohibitive laws are quite different. They are capricious and separate from any moral consideration of a violation of the rights of another. They make behavior that was perfectly acceptable yesterday unacceptable today. They actually create criminals and the lawless; they don’t reduce their ranks.

They are about control, not prevention.

Gun laws are an excellent example. What is immoral about a two shot derringer or a fully automatic AR-15? They are objects and, therefore, morally neutral. A lawful man doesn’t use either to murder because he obeys the moral laws concerning Life, not because there’s a law that kept them from him.

The lawless, unconstrained by morality or whatever deterrence exists in punitive laws are not stopped by so inconsequential a thing as a prohibitive law either. He desires to kill and will find the most efficient means he can to do so, even if it’s not legal for him to have.

This is not splitting hairs. It’s intrinsic to our understanding of the Rule of Law.

Punitive laws work. We can joke about Texas’ approach to Capital Punishment; “If you kill here, we kill you back!” But it’s the most moral and effective approach if your goal is to protect Life.

No prohibitive gun law ever passed kept a lawless man from using a gun for murder. If they did then Chicago and D.C. would be the safest cities in the nation. If they did we could give guns away without fear. After all, there’s a law, right?

But we know that’s wrong. The truth is, we know the lawless exist. We know no law will stop them. We know laws are actually the worst way to try to do so.

So why does government so often choose the least effective solution when trying to protect you? Why so many calls for stronger gun laws in the aftermath of Aurora? If the goal is to keep us safe, why not use the best tactics and strategy possible to accomplish that task? In fact, why use prohibitive laws at all?

I’ll have more thoughts on this in a day or two.

The babies were born but given up for adoption, abandoned at churches or orphanages or raised by someone else. The child was a socially awkward item, an inconvenience or a mistake that could ruin a life or a reputation because of  a single indiscretion or moment of weakness.

It was never called a threat to the mother’s health.

Later, technology enabled the elimination of the threat to reputations and futures and, wonderfully, it could be done before anyone knew the woman was pregnant. The new-fangled “get-out-of-jail-free” card was called “abortion” and people traveled across state lines and visited back alley abortion providers to avoid damage to their futures and to re-acquire their reputations.

Enter strike two. Now, not only did women have to confess to having “fallen,” but in addition, everyone understood exactly what happened at the doctor’s office; two people went in but only one came out. We could save our reputations but the cost was doubling our guilt.

Abortion kills people. And who wants to justify killing someone because they are an embarrassment? Necessity being the mother of invention, an acceptable justification for the horror visited on the most defenseless among us was found in an appeal to a woman’s health.

Strike three. A woman made bad choices, chose death for another over dishonor for herself and could escape consequences by claiming it was necessary for her health. Is it any wonder there are documented emotional and spiritual traumas associated with abortion?

But the tactic worked. We all knew the truth was otherwise, but we allowed the struggling their self deceptive rationale. Pregnancy was always understood to carry risk, as do most actions, but never so much that it was to be avoided. Despite any “danger,” couples still intentionally got pregnant.

Still, for the majority of the 40 years since Roe v Wade the mantra has been “for the health of the mother!” Only recently has the narrative changed. Of late, the emphasis has switched to rights, specifically, reproductive rights. The pretense of concern for women’s health is discarded. Under the veneer, the truth that was always there is found. It’s a matter of  convenience for the adult woman with no thought to the woman in the womb.

I thought it would take longer for the next logical, yet horrific, step. I really do hate it when I’m wrong.

Today, no less august a body than the US House of Representatives voted there did not need to be a danger to the mother’s physical or mental health. There need be no danger of a child born into poverty or with a disability which might impact its quality of life. The murder of a human being was justified simply because the mother learned she was carrying a girl when what she really wanted was a boy. This ain’t your mother’s abortion, girl! Abortion is just another sex-selection tool.

LifeNews.com reports,

With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Republicans voted for the bill [the ban] on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.

Tennessee conservatives like Marsha Blackburn stood for Life and common sense. Unsurprisingly, President Obama sided with Democrats.

This is the ultimate in selfish “to each according to his need” philosophy and principle put into policy and legislative form. May God have mercy on us …

Cross-posted from Blue Collar Muse.

The “Love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is valid at all times. It’s easy if the sinner is neutral towards you or actively pursuing Christ. It gets dicier if the sinner is your enemy and actively pursuing your destruction. There’s a difference between sinners and enemies. Self defense is not ungodly or immoral. Neither is meeting an attack with superior force of the same kind in order to defeat your enemy.

Queen Esther saved the Jews from an evilly obtained government mandated destruction by righteously obtaining a separate government mandate to meet force with force. Esther’s “granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.”

Examples of godly men opposing their enemies are found across the Scriptures. David, Joshua and Moses all come to mind. Others opposed godless government edicts at great personal risk; the first to “speak truth to power.”Remember the back story of Daniel and the lion’s den? Remember the back story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and the fiery furnace?

It’s true that at times, God has instructed one of His children to surrender His right to self-defense as part of a greater strategy. I know of testimonies of exactly that. However, this is a specific request for sacrifice and surrender of a right from an individual, not the building of churchwide doctrine on how to deal with enemies.

Consistent biblical doctrine is that, whether they be individuals or nations, the right to defend oneself from enemies exists and is not sin. Sin enters when our motivation ceases to be love of the life God gave us and becomes hatred of the one trying to take it from us. Sin enters when we name the motivation and character of our enemy. We cannot call our enemies evil men. We can only call their actions evil. The man trying to kill me is acting evilly. But he may not be evil; he may simply be deceived.

Such is the nature of our struggle against our Islamic enemies, for example. Only God knows the heart and may accurately judge it. For us to do so is sin. But their threat is no less real for all their deception. And it may be met with godly force and destruction, even on a massive scale if that is what is needed to defend oneself. Evil or deceived in motivation is irrelevant. Trying to kill me is an evil act regardless. I may oppose it and be on the side of righteousness. This is true if the attack is an armor assault or just a blog post.

Doing so isn’t seeking revenge; it is self defense! Doing so doesn’t violate being at peace with all men as much as is dependent on us; we are reacting, not acting. Doing so doesn’t mean we are not praying for and serving our enemies; US military hospitals routinely treat wounded Taliban. Doing so is not repaying evil with evil, it is, in fact, overcoming evil with good. Some forget such overcoming is not theoretical or hypothetical or, worse, spiritual. The overcoming is often dirty, brutal and deadly in the very real world.

The difference is found in the “Why?” and not the “What?”  The difference is found in who starts a fight and who ends it. Fighting back against enemies is not just godly, it’s required. The danger is in becoming what we are fighting. For Christians, that is the struggle. To destroy the works of the devil; the lies, killing and destruction – while remaining pure in heart and peacemakers. No one said it was easy; just that it needed to be done.

Be angry – sin not. Fight your enemy – don’t become him. Do not repay evil for evil. Overcome evil with good. But be angry at evil behavior; fight, and; overcome. The alternative is unthinkable.

Here in Nashville, TN we are looking at a massive property tax increase that Mayor Karl Dean insists he must have or Nashville will have no police, firemen or teachers. The only way to save the city is to enact the largest tax increase in Nashville’s history. For insight into the likely future results for Nashville, let’s look at the poster child for tax-and-spend policy results: California.

Proponents of Proposition 29, a massive tax hike slated for California’s June ballot, are offering voters the usual “Lose-Lose” deal that government always seems to plate up. CalWatchDog’s Katy Grimes reports California tax payers are expected to reach even deeper into their pockets and continue to blindly trust that the money won’t end up going to the same bureaucratic money pits as have the funds from so many other similar measures in the past. Trust …

A former California governor famously said, “Trust, but verify!” when it came to good intentions. These California politicians seem to be saying just the opposite, “Trust, and satsify!” when it comes to their desires.

The tax-and-spend lobby wants another $1 billion annually from California taxpayers this June. As an assurance that the money won’t pad the pockets of political cronies or end up wasted like billions of other tax dollars the state takes each year, they tout a typical, toothless annual audit.

How effective have these been in the past? Former Assistant State Treasurer Peter Schaafsma demonstrates they aren’t even worth the paper they are printed on. As he wrote about the state’s experience with First 5 several years ago, “the ongoing potential for adverse audit findings has not served to deter questionable spending and politics when the underlying program lacks public accountability.”

Proposition 29 is a losing bet for Californians. If history is any example, any time the spending lobby asks voters to place their faith in something, it’s usually the prelude for a swindle. Don’t take my word for it, you can read the bill for yourself and see the flaws right and left. They’re that obvious.

And let’s not forget where we started; Tennessee. In true California fashion, Mayor Dean wants 13% more spending this year and his 5 year plan means we also get a tax increase next year. He won’t put it all in at once because that would trigger an automatic referendum and the people would get to vote on it. He proposed his budget at the last possible minute giving opponents a mere 6 weeks to craft a response to a plan he had over 6 months to build. And the people have no say. Mayor Dean wrings his hands and says “Trust me!” because without this money, Nashville is doomed. How did this happen overnight? If it’s that bad, weren’t there signs last year or the year before? Why didn’t Dean make his case over time and be truthful with the people?

Hard to believe but it appears that California taxpayers have it better than we do here in Nashville. At least their politicians tell them in advance when they plan to savage their pocketbooks. Here in Nashville, however, we don’t need to know what our money will pay for. We don’t need to be able to examine it for ourselves and maybe decide our spending priorities lie in a different place. We don’t need to be able to offer up an alternative to the Mayor’s lunacy. We don’t even get to vote on the largest tax increase in our city’s history. We just get to trust another politician that what he says is so, really is so.

Because what politicians promise always works out just the way they say it will …

If you live in California, you can reject the politicians insistence that you trust them and vote No on 29. If you live in Nashville, too bad, you don’t get to vote at all …

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?