Thinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print – Cogito Ergo Blogito
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 …
… 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 …
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.
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.
TCPR sent out this presser. The Pork Report is a great annual report on the budget. Get one!! Better yet, attend the release event and get one there!!
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Tennessee’s free market think tank, and Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s leading taxpayer watchdog, will release the 2010 Tennessee Pork Report on Tuesday, June 29. This marks the fifth annual report exposing wasteful spending by state and local governments.
What: 2010 Tennessee Pork Report Release
Who: Tennessee Center for Policy Research and Citizens Against Government Waste
When: Tuesday, June 29 at 1 pm Central Time
Where: Legislative Library at the Tennessee State Capitol
Featured speakers are CAGW Vice President for Policy David Williams and Justin Owen, TCPR Acting Executive Director.
CAGW’s publications the Congressional Pig Book and Prime Cuts influenced the creation of the Tennessee Pork Report, which exposes projects in the state budget that lead to wasteful spending. The report offers resolutions to eliminate waste, and acts as an informative and valuable resource to legislators and taxpayers.
Hard copies will be distributed at the press conference. The report will also be available online at www.cagw.org and www.tennesseepolicy.org. For answers to further questions, to schedule an interview, or to order a hard copy, please contact Justin Owen (615-383-6431, justin@tennesseepolicy.org) or Leslie Paige (202-467-5334, lpaige@cagw.org).
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee. Citizens Against Government Waste is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government.
Obama finds a way to impose a moratorium on deep water drilling. Obama finds a way to extort billions from BP. He finds a way to fire his own General for telling the truth. He finds a way to still make the green in 3 after his tee shot lands in the rough. But there are available assets in the US which he is not committing to the Gulf? There are assets and resources out there which the Obama administration is not pursuing? Even though they are pursuing him? And he’s unsure whose backside needs kicking? So says Florida’s other GOP Senator, George LeMieux. Hat tip to the folks at Shark Tank for their investigative efforts.
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.
Entries (RSS)