Blue Collar Muse

The old saying is that you eat an elephant one bite at a time. The concept is timeless and has application across broad swaths of society, including politics. Incrementalism is a well established tactic, particularly by the political Left and judicial activists. The idea is that you need not reach your goal in one fell swoop. It might take longer, but goals can be just as surely, and often more permanently, accomplished in several steps.

The tactic is being effectively applied to basic tenets of American culture. We see it when Supreme Court justices put international precedents on a par with the Constitution when deciding cases. We see it when US troops, who swear allegiance to the Constitution, military officers and military legal code of the United States , are put under the military command authority of foreign armies. We see it when easily understood and universally accepted concepts are perverted. It is hard not to see, particularly this last tactic, as both intentional and designed to undermine US sovereignty.

Consider Tim Graham’s NewsBusters expose of its most recent application by Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and the focus of Time Magazine’s, “10 Questions for Jorge Ramos”. His first question is “As a Mexican-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, what is your take on the immigration debate?” His outrageous answer is, “The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, but right now millions of men and women in Arizona and in other parts of the U.S. are not being treated as equals, and I can’t believe that. Countries are judged by the way they treat the most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable population in the U.S. right now is undocumented immigrants.”

The Declaration, indeed, recognizes all men are created equal. This is a foundational principle of the country to which Ramos himself swore allegiance when he became a citizen. Yet nothing in the Declaration lets Ramos ignore US law or advocate for others to do so under the guise of equality. The equality the Declaration recognizes is that there are basic rights belonging to all men which must be equally recognized by all men. Further, no man or government is permitted to violate those rights. Ramos’ notion of equality seems to be that all men must be considered American citizens in order to be equal.

Ramos gratuitously alleges millions in the US are treated less than equally. Such a notion is indefensible. Everyone in the US must obey its laws and the laws of the states in which they are present. Insisting they do so is not unequal treatment. It is the essence of equality. All who break the law must answer to the law.

Equality requires the law to be applied the same to all men, even illegal aliens. Ramos wants illegal aliens to be exempt from some laws. That’s hardly equal. Ramos refuses to have illegal aliens abide by the same 4th Amendment Due Process protections the rest of us must rely on. That’s hardly equal. Illegal aliens and citizens alike are protected from running afoul of law enforcement because they have dark skin and a Hispanic surname. They must first be found or suspected of violating another law before their immigration status is relevant.

Of course, law enforcement might abuse its authority. It has happened before and there are precedents to deal with that. That, too, is part of equality under the law. But one cannot assume because the possibility exists in any given situation, the reality exists in all situations. Ramos’ argument depends on that assumption. It’s not that law enforcement might violate the rights of Hispanics on occasion. He must argue for a routine, near universal, violation of the rights of Hispanics. There is no evidence supporting this conclusion.

Finally, such reasoning requires Ramos to apply as valid a concept he must also condemn as wrong. Law enforcement cannot draw negative conclusions about Hispanics based on heritage but Ramos can draw negative conclusions about law enforcement based on occupation. Once again, that’s hardly equal.

It is precisely such small and incremental devaluations of language and concepts that must be exposed, condemned and corrected if our country’s heritage and strength are to endure. Ramos, and those like him, are ignorant of the most basic concept upon which this country was founded; that all men, even the King, are subject to the law. It is “Lex Rex” (The Law is King) and not “Rex Lex” (The King is Law). Rather than call Ramos on his ignorance, Time celebrates it. Such a disregard for truth by Ramos and Time serves no one, least of all the illegal aliens in our midst.

Allowing such specious reasoning to muddy the waters only means the needed solutions to such a vexing question are put off even longer while small minds rail against the very concepts established for their protection. It also weakens the strength of our nation, the same strength so many come here to be protected by, one ignorant argument at a time …

Popularity: 23% [?]

Democracy for America, a Progressive organization, is touting a Progressive Grassroots All-Star Top 10 Finalists list of candidates they would most like to see win a seat in the US House in November. The 10 are listed at their page and you can vote to move them up and down in the ranking. Not surprisingly, 4 of their current top 5 are from California. The 5th member of the top 5 is from Massachusetts. The bottom of the line-up hail from Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and New Hampshire. Just for grins, I clicked on the DFA icon for a quick blurb on what each candidate stood for. What I found for each person in less than 150 words each became this post. Not all the bad policy found in the things these candidates are actually proud of is represented below. These are just the things that jumped out at me. For your political nightmare of the week, I present the following …

#1 – Beth Krom from CA-48 says, “I will work to reform health care. In order to create a health care system that works, there must be greater accountability built into our national healthcare reforms — by individuals, physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers.” Presumably she intends to do this by using the hammer (and sickle) of the federal government she hopes to be elected to be a part of. How interesting that she demands greater accountability from “individuals, physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and insurers” but conveniently neglects to address how she will be accountable for her abuse of federal powers and completely exempts government from any accountability whatsoever in the healthcare reform process.

#2 – Mac D’Alessandro from MA-09 says, “I’m always going to side with families and consumers over insurance companies and Wall Street. I’m going to fight to ensure we create good-paying jobs in our communities …” Mac is going to beat up on insurance companies and Wall Street and then expect them to work with him to create new jobs and opportunity in his district. I’m not sure how that’s going to work out for him. Companies and market sectors, like people, respond to how they are treated. When they are over taxed, they move away. When they are unfairly demonized and pilloried by one group of people, they choose to work with other groups. Mac doesn’t seem to understand that siding with families and consumers means you have to have a good working relationship with Wall Street. Mac also doesn’t seem to understand that he has no Constitutional authority to do anything to a specific company or market sector.

#3 – Bill Hedrick from CA-44 actually has the temerity to say, “I am running for Congress to fight waste and corruption.” I remember when his fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, promised to create and preside over ” the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” Speaker Pelosi has been so successful that Mr. Hedrick needs to be sent to DC to clean it up. His first vote would possibly be to re-elect Pelosi as Speaker. One wonders exactly what it is that Hedrick believes needs changing and who he sees as responsible for fouling things up. Not to worry, President Obama has been telling us for years now that it’s Bush’s fault …

#4 – Ami Bera from CA-03 says, “I examine a crumbling economy built largely on the sands of self-interest …” I’d like for Mr. Bera to explain to me what other motivation exists for doing anything other than self interest. Even those who give away all they have or make great sacrifices do so because they believe there is a benefit to themselves in their actions. No one does anything without believing there is a benefit for themselves in it. Even Mr. Bera. More than any of his fellow finalists, in his blurb Bera uses the words “I”, “me” and “my”. Evidently Bera has a bit of a self interest challenge himself. Worse, as a Progressive, he doesn’t understand that the proper application of self interest means you cannot violate the Rights of another to accomplish your own goals and interests. You know, like forcing me to have and pay for health care if I don’t want it because your self interest determines that I should have it. Thanks for watching out for all of us, Ami …

#5 – Stephen Pougnet from CA-45 says, “The district ranks second to last in Federal funding of all California districts … As Mayor of Palm Springs, I have continually witnessed the degradation of federal services that my opponent should be fighting to preserve.” Palm Springs?!? California?!? The Playground of the Stars?!? Pougnet is disturbed his town is second to last in federal funding in California. I understand that there are residents of Palm Springs that aren’t wealthy and have needs. But why the interest in looking to DC and the rest of the country to fix that problem? Why not tax his own residents to fix his own problems? Oh, that’s right, California has already done that. It has worked so well that his own state’s deficit is bigger than my state’s entire budget! And one of his fellow cities who adopted his intended policies just collapsed under the weight of all the irresponsiblity. Maywood, CA just got rid of all its employees except the City Manager because their actions bankrupted the entire city. Pougnet wants to bring this sort of foolishness to your towns as well.

#6 – Billy Kennedy from NC-05 says, “Ever since 9th Grade civics, we’ve all known the way Washington is supposed to work. We elect representatives who go to Congress to pass laws for the good of the citizens. But as adults, we’ve all learned why things have gone terribly wrong and aren’t working.” I’m not sure what 9th Grade Civics class Kennedy took, but in mine we learned that Government was instituted by the People to secure our Liberties, not to pass laws for the good of the citizens. Perhaps Billy is unfamiliar with the idea of securing of Liberties because it is Constitutional language. It appears his Civics class neglected to cover that document. Billy did get one thing right. We have all, indeed, learned why things have gone terribly wrong and aren’t working. It’s because Progressives have been at work undermining the country and its economy for the last 100 years.

#7 – David Segal from RI-01 says he will be “…taking on Wall Street by breaking up the big banks and forcing them to lend to small businesses and homeowners.” Where does the federal government, or even any state government, derive the power to break up any company or to force them to do anything? Segal evidently slept through the previous attempts at government forcing banks to do what it wanted them to do. It was what gave us the current Housing crisis and the related recession! David Segal is saying he wants to do more of what caused the current economic recession in the first place! And there are people at Democracy for America who think that makes him a Top Ten Finalist for best candidate for the House.

#8 – Russell Edwards from GA-10 says, “I am a firm believer in the 50-State Strategy and have taken matters into my own hands. I am DFA-trained and feel empowered. Many progressives have fled for more thoughtful communities. I have stayed, determined to help my state move forward.” I’m not even sure what to say about this guy. He says absolutely nothing at all with an objective perspective. He offers no ideas or plans. He appears to have acquired his place on the list by taking part in some Democracy For America training. Other than that, feeling empowered and taking matters into his own hands to assist a non-thoughtful community in moving forward appear to be his only qualifications for office. I cannot find a worse candidate profile on the list.

#9 – Ann McLane Kuster from NH-02 says, “I want to help President Obama move us past the mistakes of the Bush years – mistakes like the war in Iraq, a federal deficit that’s totally out of control, and an energy policy that ignores global warming and makes us even more dependent on foreign oil. But this isn’t just about George Bush.” This woman should not be permitted to speak without a real time fact checker to correct her. She cannot see the reality of our current situation. The war in Iraq? We’re still there. A federal deficit out of control? The vote to raise the Debt Ceiling, Bailouts and increased Deficit Spending are now the worst ever! Bad energy policy? We refused expert help in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill and moratoriums on the Oil Industry have jobs and energy production moving overseas as oil platforms flee the Gulf. But enough about George Bush … This woman is certifiable. One is tempted to wonder if somewhere in her past her relatives exchanged the “C” for a “K” in their last name hoping that would eradicate bad decision making from their gene pool …

#10 – Bryan Lentz from PA-07 is the only rational sounding candidate on the page. In fact, his history and points would play well in any circle I’m a part of. Military service, fighting for the People and “fighting for real economic solutions, investment in new and clean energy, and the restoration of accountability and transparency to our government. I have never been afraid to stand up for ordinary Americans against the powerful special interests and in Washington I will continue to put the people first.” make him sound positively Reagan-esque. The Open Left email introducing the 10 Finalists notes that “Almost all the Democrats in danger of losing their seats in 2010 are conservatives. Progressives actually have several good chances to win new seats. If we find and support progressive champions, we can make sure the only Democrats who lose in November are Blue Dogs and Conservadems.” Given that, I’m not sure how Lentz made the list. I will point out, however, that he’s in last place. Nobody’s perfect.

These are the candidates supported by the Far Left. These are the policies and principles they want to enact. These policies have already dealt our country severe economic and constitutional blows. Please consider looking up the incumbents these folks are supporting and sending a few bucks their way to help make sure we are protected from this insanity.

Popularity: 28% [?]

On Thursday night, July 15th, 7 of the 10 candidates for US House in Tennessee’s 5th District met for a candidate forum the night before early voting began. The event, sponsored by Conservatives on the Move and co-sponsored by The Tennessee ConserVOLiance, Tennessee Tax Revolt, The Davidson County Republican Party, Tennessee Tea Party, 9-12 Project Tennessee and the National Fiscal Conservative PAC drew a crowd of about 150 at Apollo Middle School for two hours of questions from audience members and sponsoring organizations.

Candidates participating, in alphabetical order, were Jeff Hartline, CeCe Heil, Patrick Miranda, Bob Ries, Bob Schwartz, Lonnie Spivak and Tracy Tarum. The event was moderated and overseen by event organizers Fabian Story and Ken Marrero.

The event format was significantly different than formats for events of this nature. Rather than asking all 7 candidates the same 5 questions, event organizers chose a different approach. No candidate was asked to respond individually to the same question. A random order for participation and random questions drawn from those submitted by sponsoring organizations ensured a wide variety of topics and the opportunity to be exposed to several positions from the candidates. Rather than a standard rebuttal, each candidate was given a red “challenge” flag to use the way NFL coaches use their challenge flags. In the event of a disagreement, a candidate could challenge the statement or position of an opposing candidate. Further, each candidate was issued a small whiteboard to answer what were dubbed “Final Jeopardy” questions. These were questions asked of all candidates at the same time with all answers written down and revealed at the same time. Response from the audience and candidates alike indicated that the changes made for a more fresh and fun experience.

There was a straw poll taken, the results of which are noted below. In addition, one of the Final Jeopardy questions was to list as many of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, from Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, as possible in a 2 minute period. The answers given by the candidates along with the text of Article 1 Section 8 are also listed below.

STRAW POLL RESULTS:

CeCe Heil 31 – 32.9%

Jeff Hartline 24 – 25.5%

Lonnie Spivak 17 – 18.1%

Bob Schwartz 12 – 12.8%

Bob Ries 4 – 4.3%

Patrick Miranda 4 – 4.3%

Tracy Tarum 2 – 2.6%

The number of correctly identified Enumerated Powers (full list of answers and actual enumerated powers appear at the end):

Lonnie Spivak – 14 right / 0 wrong
Bob Ries – 7 right / 2 wrong
Jeff Hartline – 6 right / 0 wrong
Bob Schwartz – 5 right / 2 wrong
Tracy Tarum – 5 right / 0 wrong
CeCe Heil – 2 right / 1 wrong
Patrick Miranda – 2 right / 2 wrong

Lonnie Spivak’s answers were: “Tax, Borrow Money, Regulate Commerce, Coin Money, Prosecute Counterfeiters, Protect Intellectual Property, Create Tribunals, Declare War, Create Armies, Create a Navy, Standardize Naturalization and Bankruptcy, Provide for sending troops to war, Militias, Seat of Government”. Credit given for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17

Bob Ries’ answers were: “Control Interstate Commerce, Tax but Tax evenly, Postal Roads, Coin Money, Lend Money, Authority over Captives, Authority over Washington DC – Docks – Arsenals – Forts, Patents and Copyrights, Banking” Credit given for 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17. “Lend Money, Banking” were considered incorrect answers.

Jeff Harline’s answers were: “Form an Army, Form a Navy, Establish Post Office and Post Roads, Lay and Collect Taxes, Regulate Interstate Commerce, Establish Court System” Credit given for 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13

Bob Schwartz’s answers were: “Levy Taxes, Raise Armies, Protect Intellectual Property, Regulate Interstate Commerce, Mint Money, Create Budget for Federal Government, Provide Oversight/Impeachment for POTUS, VP and Cabinet level Officers” Credit given for 1, 3, 5, 8, 12. “Create Budget and Provide Oversight” were considered incorrect answers.

Tracy Tarum’s answers were: “Levy Tarriffs, Postal Service/Roads, Raise a Navy, Regulate Trade between States, Print Money” Credit given for 1, 3, 5, 7, 13

CeCe Heil’s answers were “Power to Lay and Collect Taxes, Military/Defense, Set the Budget” Credit given for 1, 14 “Set the Budget” was considered an incorrect answer.

Patrick Miranda’s answers were “National Defense/Protect Citizens, General Welfare, Coin Money, 3 Branches Kept Separate, State’s Rights vis-a-vis Expansion of Federal Government” Credit given for 1, 5. “3 Branches Kept Separate, State’s Rights vis-a-vis Expansion of Federal Government” were considered wrong answers.

The complete list of enumerated powers from the Constition’s Article 1, Section 8 is as follows:

1 – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2 – To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3 – To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
4 – To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5 – To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
6 – To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
7 – To establish post offices and post roads;
8 – To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
9 – To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10 – To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
11 – To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
12 – To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
13 – To provide and maintain a navy;
14 – To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
15 – To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
16 – To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17 – To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
18 – To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Popularity: 32% [?]

The latest from Michael Moore – he’s now stolen and posted work that belongs to another. This time the “another” is a fine writer and acquaintance of mine.

As angry as I was about Moore’s crime, I believe the lesson here is – this is not a “Michael Moore” problem, it’s a principle problem. If there is no respect for your right to your own property; if, in just one example, your property in the form of money can be taken from you by Government via taxation and given to another to benefit those doing the taking ~ why are we surprised to see the exact principle and philosophy applied to other property – real, intellectual or otherwise?

Better than calling out Michael Moore is a strategy focused on excoriating anyone – Republican, Democrat, Greedy Corporate Robber Baron or Thieving Limousine Liberal – ANYONE – who advocates taking ANYTHING belonging to someone else and using it for themselves. If I do not have the right to everything that is mine then I do not have the right to anything that is mine.

If society as a whole condemned such blatant theft, we could just about return our country’s moral and political compass to true north with need for little more in the way of activism. If we only squeal when our ox is gored, then we are little better than Rand’s Moochers and Looters.

What Moore did to Jack Lail and his videographer is criminal. But so is what the Government does to Americans every day.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Middle Tennessee has a forum scheduled this evening for candidates for Tennessee’s Senate District 17. It is sponsored by the Wilson County Tea Party (WCTP), moderated by WLAC’s Steve Gill and will feature GOP candidates Mae Beavers and Gordon Borck. It will not feature GOP candidate Susan Lynn. WCTP is reporting this. Their emails and their website say “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate.” Reading those words, one would be justified in concluding Rep. Lynn was extended a good faith invitation and refused it. One would also be justified in drawing the negative conclusions about Rep. Lynn such refusals usually generate.

However, it seems WCTP’s sparse explanation, while accurate, is incomplete. When Rep. Lynn was invited to the debate, she immediately agreed to participate. It was only after WCTP refused to seat a forum moderator other than Steve Gill that Susan withdrew from the event.

Steve has been critical of Rep. Lynn on his show. He has taken many GOP candidates to task, including Mae Beavers, if he is to be believed. Gill thinks he’d make a great moderator. Listening to this clip from his show, while some say his words argue for his impartiality, other words and a manner seen by many as demeaning and insulting are said to argue otherwise. Does this prove he cannot be impartial? No. Might reasonable people wonder if he could be? Yes. In cases like these, requests to seat a new moderator are routine. Given their history, Rep. Lynn asked for a different moderator. Not because tough questions might be asked. But because of who was asking the tough questions. WCTP refused.

Which brings us to WCTP. Why sponsor this debate in the first place? Was it to provide information to voters about candidates? Then all they have to do is find a date, a place and a moderator acceptable to everyone. Lynn’s request for a different moderator is not unusual or difficult to fulfill. But the WCTP declined to participate. Why did they decide having Steve Gill moderate was more valuable to voters than having Susan Lynn answer questions?

The decision is disappointing and, frankly, goes against all the Tea Parties stand for. It’s more the sort of thing we expect from special interest groups. Why refuse to act in the interest of the People? Why insist on a scenario so easily perceived as restricting access to good information?

WCTP’s refusal to accommodate Lynn’s reasonable request set up a Catch-22. If Rep. Lynn accepts the invitation as is, she puts herself in the hands of one who might treat her badly. If she refuses the invitation, it might be used against her politically. There’s no upside, yet she has to choose. She chose to refuse the invitation.

WCTP’s explanation of Lynn’s decision is terrible. Instead of full disclosure, they offer incomplete truth. They say, “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate,” when it was just as easy to say, “Rep. Susan Lynn has declined to participate due to concerns over the impartiality of our moderator.” That would have been a complete and truthful answer. It would also mean having to explain why they chose not provide a moderator acceptable to all invited guests.

This is precisely the inside-the-beltway, smoke-filled-back-room, good-ol’-boy, politics as usual the Tea Parties formed to oppose. That we have a Tea Party using such tactics is disturbing. But the worst conclusion is, given the ease with which the problem could have been solved, how does an objective observer label this as anything but intentional.

In the end, this is not about Susan Lynn, Mae Beavers, Gordon Borck or even Steve Gill. It’s about the integrity of the Tea Party Movement. The entire country is talking about its future. Some say it’s bright. Others say it will all be over shortly. The answer will be found in the actions of the Tea Parties themselves. If they will not ensure they cannot hear the various siren songs sung across political seas, if they become the very thing they say they despise, then one of our best hopes to deliver our country from the evils it currently faces is lost.

Popularity: 40% [?]

Great video from a good friend, Duane Lester, at All American Blogger!!

Popularity: 27% [?]

So let me get this right …

General Stanley McChrystal can get fired for an aide of his referring to one of his bosses, VP Joe Biden, as Joe “Bite Me”. Yet that same Joe Biden gets off scott free for calling one of his bosses, a small business owner, a “smarta** when the boss asks Biden to lower his taxes? How does that make sense?

Popularity: 24% [?]

Since the election of our current President I have consistently stated that he may be the President but he will never be my President. The current crisis in the Gulf is a perfect example of why. Despite his stated desire to be the President of all Americans, Barack Obama has demonstrated such words are meaningless rhetoric for political consumption. The Obama voice that we should be listening to is the one that speaks louder than words.

Since the beginning of the BP Gulf oil spill, we have had domestic resources available which the President has not utilized and offers of expert foreign help, some of it superior to our own capabilities, which the President has refused to accept. It’s the refusal of these foreign offers that is particularly revealing of Obama’s mindset.

BP CEO Tony Hayward has been the brunt of massive, international criticism for his behavior. Barack Obama has also personally been critical of Hayward and BP. Hayward’s comment that he’d like his life back and his decision to attend a yacht race while the Gulf crisis remains unresolved have been seen as evidence of his lack of concern and engagement regardless of what official statements BP might release. BP is seen as fiddling while Rome burns. Response to him and his actions is understandable.

Inexplicably, President Obama has avoided similar charges being laid at his doorstep. Searching for “whose a** to kick” and shaking down BP for $20 billion between shots on the front nine gives the impression of effective engagement and serves to divert attention from his own equally irresponsible and callous disregard for those impacted by the spill.

At issue are resources for cleaning up oil spills known as skimmers. They have a variety of designs, applications and capacities. But skimmer technology is proven and in daily use around the world. Recognizing large spills need large capacity skimmers, the Market has developed just such products.

These products are being offered to the US from all over the world. But the Obama administration refuses to accept them. There are are two basic reasons why, one environmental and one rooted in protectionist labor policy. President Obama cares more about the interests of Labor Unions and Environmentalists than he does everyday Americans being devastated by the oil spill.

The environmental argument is irresponsibility in the extreme. The Taiwanese have a ship in US waters, waiting for permission to be deployed to the Gulf, that can process 500,000 barrels of contaminated water per day. Current estimates of the amount of oil flowing into the gulf range from 5,000 to 25,000 barrels per day (Note:figures are determined assuming litres=quarts and 42 gallons per barrel. It’s understood this is not an exact conversion). Depending on the water:oil ratio of the area in which the ship was working, it could stop the increase in oil accumulation in the Gulf if not get ahead of it.

The Taiwanese Super Skimmer sucks up water and oil and separates the two. The oil is stored aboard the ship and the water is pumped back into the ocean. Since the the oil/water separation is not 100% effective, some water returned to the Gulf has oil in it. How much? An AP writer says, “traces of oil.” But even those traces require EPA permission for the technology to be deployed. 500,000 barrels out – traces back in. The irony and surreal nature of the situation is obvious. The President could sign an order to deploy the technology. He refuses …

In addition, the President hides behind protectionist labor policies not meant to be applied to situations such as this. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as The Jones Act,

… deals with cabotage (i.e., coastal shipping) and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents …

In addition, amendments to the Jones Act, known as the Cargo Preference Act (P.L. 83-644), provide permanent legislation for the transportation of waterborne cargoes in U.S.-flag vessels.

In the event of emergency, Presidents can suspend the Jones Act. President Bush did so after Katrina. President Obama decimated the livelihoods of thousands by enacting a moratorium on drilling. He permits the livelihood of thousands more to be decimated as oil washes ashore. Yet he has the gall to claim he is doing all he can. Other countries have ships and crews, waiting to help, sitting idle in American waters, including the Taiwanese ship, flagged out of Liberia and carrying a crew of 32.  How long must we wait for Barack Obama to decide the devastation of America’s economy outweighs the temporary suspension of 32 union jobs.

Worse, some of the most effective technology doesn’t even need such attention. According to Wierd Koops, chairman of the Dutch organization for combating oil spills, Spill Response Group Holland, Dutch technology is available which can be deployed “… very quickly, because only the oil skimmers need to be flown across the Atlantic and placed on local tankers …” While this still violates the Jones Act provision that such material be constructed in the United States and owned by U.S. citizens it gets around the shipping issue. It’s not like the US has companies capable of producing such equipment in a reasonable time frame, if at all. Why is this not the easiest decision of Obama’s presidency?

The conclusion is inescapable. We elected an inexperienced, empty suit with ties to people, places and policy detrimental to America’s best interests. He is incapable of action supportive of the Free Market, the notion of Americans protecting America or his constitutional obligation to secure the liberties of the people. He cannot distinguish between the anonymity of the Illinois Senate and the focus on his solo performance on the Presidential stage. Having flubbed easily memorized lines and eschewing the cue cards, the President resorts to blaming his supporting cast, stage hands and the orchestra while boasting of his award winning performance.  The quintessential diva.

But beyond the staging, smoke and mirrors, Americans are being savaged.  This is no play. It’s a battle. And it must be asked, who is more despicable? The man who shoots another man, even innocently or accidentally, or the man who watches the victim bleed out, having the power to help yet without lifting a finger, all while claiming he’s an integral part of the life-saving? If you can find the President somewhere on the back nine, ask him that for me …

Popularity: 24% [?]

OK -

I’ve been talking about adding an Event Calendar here at Blue Collar Muse for at least a year. Frankly, the time and daunting nature of the task made it a bit intimidating to consider. Something clicked on Thursday night when I was talking with Ryan Harring at the Liberty on the Rocks event in Murfreesboro.

When I told him I wanted to do a calendar so events like his (which was excellent, by the way) could get more publicity and become better attended he looked at me a bit skeptically. He quietly said something to the effect that he’d been hearing talk of something like that for a long time but so far it had remained just talk. Ouch!! But I took it in the spirit (I hope) it was intended – after all, the Book notes that “faithful are the wounds of a friend!”

I came home and promptly decided to put into action the idea I’d been carrying around for so long. Let this be the formal announcement of the Tennessee Calendar of Events hosted here and at The Tennessee ConserVOLiance. Just look in the header for the page titled “Event Calendar” and click through. It’s pretty straightforward. If you’ve got an event you want to add to the calendar, you’ll find directions on how to do it there as well.

I envision the calendar being used in a variety of ways. Some folks will want to see what’s going on if they have a free evening. Others will want to be able to plan that free day in advance. Still others will want to find events that address issues and topics that appeal to them. The common thread will likely be how does one find all the things happening all around without being on 50 email lists (or more) and trying to remember all the details. The Tennessee Event Calendar solves those issues.

Another less obvious issue comes up in the discussion of conflicts between events. If you are planning an event in the future, how do you know what other events you might be in conflict with? The TEC helps there as well. For the ambitious among us who are trying to get to more than one or two events in a day, having all the events listed chronologically as well as having maps provided make that task easier.

So here you go, Tennessee … a statewide calendar of events. Let me know what you think – tell all your friends and be sure and get me all the events you know about to be a part of the calendar. The less information, the less effective the tool.

Enjoy …

Popularity: 21% [?]

What: Nullify Now! Nullification conference (with Jack Hunter)

When: Saturday, October 23, 2010 1:00 PM at the Chattanooga Trade and Convention Center.

Jack Hunter joins us in Chattanooga to talk about the nuts and bolts of nullification and what YOU can do on a state level to stop a wide range of unconstitutional federal “laws” and regulations.

Through historical writings, case studies, and speeches by the Founding Fathers, Hunter and 10 other speakers will give you a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification, revealing:

• How we can roll back Obamacare, stimulus spending, and other unconstitutional expansions of federal power through nullification
• Why the Founding Fathers believed that nullification was the “moderate middle ground,” not the road to secession
• Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the states the power to nullify unconstitutional laws
• Why states, not the Supreme Court, should arbitrate disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s actions.

Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator. He appears every Tuesday and Friday morning on WTMA News-Talk 1250 AM. He is also a weekly contributor to the Charleston City Paper, and a contributing editor to The American Conservative.

More speakers will be listed here in the coming weeks!!!

Sponsored by:
The Campaign For Liberty
The 10th Amendment Center
Young Americans For Liberty
The New American Magazine
WeRefuse.com

Popularity: 17% [?]