Camp4u

What can you sell on Wednesday?

2012-03-05T05:41:00.002-05:00

As I said a few days ago my decision to shift my support to Rick Santorum was difficult, but as I drilled down on the numbers my decision became more and more clear. As I said I love Newt. When he was speaker Lowered taxes, balanced budgets, unemployment was ½ what it is now and he Reformed entitlements.

But

He has finished in 3rd or 4th place for 8 states in a row.

He and to a lesser degree Ron Paul are NOT fighting Rick Santorum any longer, they are fighting the question is Romney “inevitable"?

Credible polling has Newt (And Paul to a lesser degree) at 9-13% not just in Tennessee but in a lot of states. But for the sake of argument lets just say Newt is really at 18%. Lets just say Jupiter aligns with Pluto and Newt suddenly jumps another 5 or 6 points in every single poll in every single state in 24 hours with no debates and a fraction of the money. He still probably loses every single state except Georgia and possibly North Carolina to Romney.

His votes almost all come from Santorum supporters so he realistically helps Romney win 8 or probably 9 out of 10 super Tuesday states making it 13 out of 14 in the last few weeks for Romney. I don’t see how Anyone can go out and tell people you are viable and that Romney is not inevitable after that with a straight face.

But…

Let’s just say numbers stay close to where they are right now and Santorum holds on and wins Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina. Maybe squeaks out a shocker in Vermont or NJ. Newt wins Georgia or possibly HE even wins NC.

Entirely different dynamic then saying one guy won 13 out of the last 14 states.

Then you can go out and sell Romney lost the majority of states (11 of 19) and its still a horse race for a conservative to win. Not a forgone conclusion.

That is why unless you support Romney you need to vote for Rick Santorum even if you really want Newt to win. The exception being if you live in Georgia or maybe North Carolina.

The numbers don't lie. The 3 conservatives need Santorum to win on Tuesday or its over for all of them.

Tough times, tough decisions.

2012-03-03T08:08:00.005-05:00

As the presidential primary draws near in Tennessee, some hard decisions face us. Newt Gingrich to me is the top candidate. Smart, experienced and a great debater with the history of solid results to get it done.

In his time as speaker he stood up to the media, balanced budgets, cut unemployment to half what it is now and did a wealth of other great things like reforming our welfare system.

He would make an outstanding president.

Unfortunately, politics is a cruel mistress. Things shift and momentum turns. After South Carolina 2 mediocre debates and some missteps (such as pushing moon colonies) in Florida, he left the door open to Rick Santorum. Rick took his opportunities and made the most of them by winning 3 states in a row. Dropping Newt to a distant third in almost all polling.

I was hoping Newt could re surge with a strong debate before Michigan. While he showed well, it was not to be. In Michigan and Arizona he stayed down at the bottom With Santorum and Romney battling it out up top. After the Santorum second place in Michigan and Arizona I know Newt was hoping for a momentum shift but that has not really happened either.

Now the moderate wing is trying to close it down saying the divided primary is hurting the party and we all need to get behind Romney and just hang it up. Romney keeps "winning" without gaining plurality and is racking up the delegates.

Nothing would make moderates happier then a continued split field to keep Romney in front until everyone just coalesce behind him. I have seen it too many times in the past here in Tennessee. Multiple conservatives divide the field and the moderate wins without ever getting over 50%. Polling shows Obama is nearly unelectable because of his unpopularity in key swing states. The only question is, who will win the primary. While I could support a moderate (Romney) over a liberal (Obama), I would much prefer a conservative over a moderate and a clear difference in policy will keep that split wide.

Here is where it gets hard. After super Tuesday without a coalition of the conservatives, voter fatigue and the moderate screams of "Just give it to Romney. He is inevitable!" will be overpowering. With no slew of debates to propel Newt back up to the top and too many states and not enough money to buy the media needed for a drastic sea change before super Tuesday it will stay close to where it is now. Divided, with one monied moderate and several conservatives ripping each other to pieces for second place.

Something has to change.

Now.

While I would personally prefer Newt and think he would make a great president, it is clearly getting too late for him to come back. As much as it pains me to say it, the conservative with the momentum and ability to still make it happen is Rick Santorum. Not that Rick is bad. In fact he is great in many ways, pro life, strong conservative credentials, pro family and a lot of the same ideas Newt has. It just hurts because my wishes for Newt to do well are so strong.

Unfortunately, while I am twisted inside because of my loyalty to Newt, my loyalty must first lie with my country and getting a country with a conservative leader must take precedence to my own personal whims of fancy.

Therefore, As of now, I am stepping down as the statewide co chairman for Newt Gingrich and throwing all of my support behind Rick Santorum. Going with me are the top 3 second congressional district delegates for Newt (Dr. Lenard Brown, Dr. Aaron Margulise and Scott Smith). We all now throw our support behind Rick Santorum and hope for his success. We encourage other people who are supporting other candidates (not just in Tennessee but across the nation) to follow suit and throw your support behind Rick Santorum so we can coalesce and have a conservative to lead our party, and our country back to victory and prosperity.

NASCAR Snubs Obama

2012-03-02T06:37:00.001-05:00

If Obama thinks this is bad just wait until election day.

When teachers talk about homosexuality

2012-03-01T22:44:00.004-05:00

Well, well what do you know. Lets see. The left seems to hate the idea of the classroom protection act that restricts teachers in grades k-8 discussions on sexuality to natural reproduction.

Of course when a teacher deviates from their dogma and speaks out against homosexuality to kids what do they want? To silence the teacher from talking about homosexuality.

After the ACLU issued its news release on Thursday, gay rights organization the Human Rights Campaign launched a petition asking members and supporters to protest Bond's comments. The group said it collected 5,000 signatures within four hours.

They like us! They really, really like us!

2012-03-01T22:12:00.002-05:00

When your party is the dominant party (as Republicans are in Tennessee) to keep on winning seats (short of gerrymandered district) all you need to do is keep your people happy. While the MTSU poll is notoriously way off when polling Republicans or Republican issues the state legislature is on the plus side especially among the dominant Republican party.

Asked about the job the state Legislature is doing, Tennesseans are almost evenly divided into three groups that approve (39 percent), disapprove (30 percent), and don’t know whether they approve or disapprove or refuse to answer the question (32 percent). Likely voters are similarly ambivalent, with 40 percent saying they approve, 32 percent saying they disapprove, and 28 percent saying they don’t know or refusing to answer the question.
A majority of Tennessee’s Democrats disapprove (54 percent), while a majority of the state’s Republicans (55 percent) approve of the Republican-dominated Legislature. A plurality of independents, 38 percent, approve, while 28 percent disapprove, and 34 percent don’t know or refuse to answer.

Tin ear

2012-03-01T22:00:00.002-05:00

Lets see. 82% of people are in favor of photo ID to vote. Like clockwork, Democrats come out strong against it.

Did the Christmas tree get out safely?

2012-03-01T16:57:00.009-05:00

Before someone says it, let me say it for you. "Is this what you meant when you said you wanted to "reduce unneeded expensive regulation on businesses" when you were running for office?"

The silly bill of the week has to be one we passed today for sheds. You know, the things you put your lawn mower, bicycles and various other items of junk from your house in.
It seems some guy was putting an electric light in his little wooden sheds he sold so a new law had to be made to cover it. Now, not only is an electrical inspection required but a smoke detector must be installed in the shed as well.

That has to be the most ridiculous law we have passed this year. I mean really who are we protecting from smoke? People don't live in little 10x10 wood sheds. They put yard rakes, garbage cans and Christmas tree ornaments in them. Are we now down to protecting the rakes, shovels and lawn mowers so they are woken up and can bounce and roll out to safety in case of a midnight fire? I mean that is the only thing that is in there to hear it go off. Lets just say by chance a fire did suddenly break out as someone was putting away the hedge clippers. Are they not going to see the billowing plumes of smoke and flame in a 10x10 space?

All I can think of is a variation of the age old "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it really make a sound?" quote.

"If a smoke detector goes off in a shed and no one is ever in there to hear it is it really needed?"

Whats next? Sprinkler systems? Second exits?

New Newt schedule.

2012-02-29T20:48:00.000-05:00

Newt Monday 3/5

11:15 wheels up to tri cities

12:35. Arrive into tri citiesr

1-2pm. Airport rally in tri cities

2:15-2:30 hold for media interview

2:45 wheels up to knoxville

3:30 arrive into Knoxville

4-5 airport rally in Knoxville

5:15-5:30 hold for media interview

6:00 wheels up to Chattanooga

6:45 arrive into Chattanooga

7:00-8 Airport rally in chattanooga

8:15-8:30. Hold for media interview

8:45 wheels up to Gwinnett county,ga

Newt in Knox

2012-02-29T07:41:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich will be in Knoxville Monday 1:30ish he will stop at the sunsphere and talk about energy and policy for about 30 minutes. The details are still being worked out with Mayor Burchett. Possible second stop in the Oak Ridge area as well.

More to come...

Get back to politicking

2012-02-28T22:17:00.003-05:00

My amendment to stop political lobbying for or against legislation during government paid work hours failed to be added to the TEAM bill today. It would have made lobbying for legislation by non lobbyists (during government paid work hours) covered the same way as political campaigning for a candidate is covered in the little hatch act now.

It was funny how the entire committee room today was pack filled by TSEA union government employees.

In the middle of the day.

On a Tuesday.

During work hours.

I wonder how much the state paid out to have all of them sit in the committee room for 4 and 1/2 hours and cheer when people spoke against employing people based on the quality of their work.

When it came out that my amendment would penalize them for politicking the same way as the little hatch act would for politicking for a candidate while on the job, a gasp went across the room.

Well, you don't have to worry if you are a government employee. Your ability to tell your boss you don't feel like doing your actual job you are employed and paid to do, that you instead want to sit in a committee room all day or call 132 legislators and talk about politics and legislation during work hours. You can. You are still protected by law.

By by Berke.

2012-02-28T11:45:00.003-05:00

Andy Berke who replaced Convicted Democrat Ward Crutchfield will not seek re election to the state senate next year. He is the 7th Dem to call it quits as the thoughts of running with Obama at the top of the ticket is not too appealing. The district currently represented by Berke in the Chattanooga area has seen the percent of Republican leaning voters increase substantially after redistricting in a fair and legal way.

Five Judicial Myths

2012-02-27T18:52:00.002-05:00

This is such a good article I had to post it in its entirety. If you want the footnotes and the original article you can find them here.

Despite what we hear today . . .

1. THE JUDICIARY IS NOT A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

A. Federalist #51: “the legislative authority necessarily predominates.1

B. Federalist #78: “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. . . . The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. . . . [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power. . . . [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.2

C. Congress determines the operation of the Judiciary, not vice versa (Congress sets the number of judges and courts; what issues may come before the courts; judges’ salary and compensation; how often the courts meet and the length of their sessions; and just as Congress can establish and set the number of lowers courts, so, too, can Congress also abolish them; etc.)

D. Robert Wright, officer in the Revolution, Maryland judge, early U. S. Senator: “[C]ongress can establish legislatively a court, and thereby create a judge; so they can legislatively abolish the court and eventually annihilate the officer…the inferior courts are creatures of the legislature, and that the creature must always be in the power of the creator – that he who createth can destroy.3

E. William Giles, member of the first federal Congress under the Constitution: “Is that [the Judiciary department] formed by the Constitution? It is not…It is only declared that there shall be such a department, and it is directed to be formed by the two other departments, who owe a responsibility to the people….The number of judges, the assignation of duties, the fixing of compensations, the fixing the times when, and the places where, the courts shall exercise the functions, &c., are left to the entire discretion of Congress. The spirit as well as the words of the Constitution are completely satisfied, provided one Supreme Court be established….Congress may postpone the sessions of the courts for eight or ten years, and establish others to whom they could transfer all the powers of the existing courts.4

F. As Rep. Steve King correctly explains, “Constitutionally, Congress can reduce the Supreme Court to nothing more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle” – a power that the Judiciary cannot reciprocally exercise over Congress.

2. THE JUDICIARY IS NOT TO BE AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

A. John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution: “[W]hat innumerable acts of injustice may be committed – and how fatally may the principles of liberty be sapped – by a succession of judges utterly independent of the people?5

B. Thomas Jefferson: “It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.6

C. Nathaniel Chipman, office in the Revolution, early Member of Congress, U. S. federal judge, Chief Justice of Vermont Supreme Court: “If the judges are made thus independent . . . they will become a dangerous body.7

D. Jonathan Mason, law student trained by John Adams and an early Member of Congress: “The independence of the judiciary so much desired will – if tolerated – soon become something like supremacy. They will, indeed, form the main pillar of this goodly fabric; they will soon become the only remaining pillar, and they will presently be so strong as to crush and absorb the others into their solid mass.8

E. Thomas Jefferson: “We think, in America, that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government. . . Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the legislative or judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making them.9

F. Joseph Nicholson, early Member of Congress, successfully managed the impeachment of multiple early federal judges: “Give [judges] the powers and the independence now contended for and . . . your government becomes a despotism and they become your rulers. They are to decide upon the lives, the liberties, and the property of your citizens; they have an absolute veto upon your laws by declaring them null and void at pleasure; they are to introduce at will the laws of a foreign country…after being clothed with this arbitrary power, they are beyond the control of the nation. . . . If all this be true – if this doctrine be established in the extent which is now contended for – the Constitution is not worth the time we are now spending on it. It is – as it has been called by its enemies – mere parchment. For these judges, thus rendered omnipotent, may overleap the Constitution and trample on your laws.10

3. THE JUDICIARY IS NOT THE SOLE BRANCH CAPABLE OF DETERMINING CONSTITUTIONALITY

A. James Madison: “But the great objection . . . is that the Legislature itself has no right to expound the Constitution – that wherever its meaning is doubtful, you must leave it to take its course until the Judiciary is called upon the declare its meaning. . . . I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits.11

B. Elbridge Gerry, signer of the Declaration and a framer of the Bill of Rights: “It was quite foreign from the nature of [the judiciary’s] office to make them judges of the policy of public measures.12

C. Luther Martin, framer of the Constitution and Attorney General of Maryland: “A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.13

D. John Randolph of Roanoke: “[I]f you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature contended for…The power which has the right of passing – without appeal – on the validity of laws is your sovereign.14

E. Thomas Jefferson: “O]ur Constitution. . . . has given – according to this opinion – to one of [the three Branches] alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others – and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.15

F. Rufus King, signer of the Constitution, framer of the Bill of Rights: “The judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators.16

G. John Randolph of Roanoke: “The decision of a constitutional question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confided to men immediately responsible to the people – the Congress, or to those who are irresponsible…the judges?....[a]re we [Congress] not as deeply interested in the true exposition of the Constitution as the judges can be? With all the deference to their talents, is not Congress as capable of forming a correct opinion as they are? Are not its members acting under a responsibility to public opinion which can, and will, check their aberrations from duty?17

H. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.18

I. James Madison: “[R]efusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. . . . makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper.19

J. Federalist #81: “[T]here is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.20

K. Thomas Jefferson: “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions – a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . [A]nd their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective.21

L. President Andrew Jackson: “Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. . . . The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive.22

M. Abraham Lincoln: “I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. . . . At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having . . . resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.23

4. FEDERAL JUDGES DO NOT HOLD LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS

A. The Constitution says that judges hold their office only during “good behavior” (Art. III, Sec. 1).

B. Federal judges may be removed by Congress for misbehavior, which, historically, did not include only criminal behavior but also other misbehavior.

C. Historically, federal judges have been removed from the bench by Congress for contradicting an order of Congress, for profanity, for rude treatment of witness in a courtroom, for drunkenness, for judicial high-handedness and a variety of other reasons.24

D. The Constitution provides six clauses on impeachment – the most often-mentioned subject in the Constitution.25

E. The Founding Fathers and early legal authorities were clear about the ground for impeachment:

1. James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: “[I]mpeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.26

2. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “The offenses to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy. . . . are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.27

3. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court: “[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.28

4. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “attempts to subvert the Constitution.29

5. Alexander Hamilton: “the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself.30

6. George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights,” and Elbridge, signer of the Declaration and Framer of the Bill of Rights: “mal-administration.31

7. William Rawle, legal authority and author of early constitutional commentary: “the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice32 as well as attempts to “infringe the rights of the people.33

8. Justice Joseph Story, a “Father of American Jurisprudence” appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison: “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.34
F. Federalist #65: “[T]he practice of impeachments [is] a bridle in the hands of the Legislative body.35

G. Justice James Iredell, a ratifier of the Constitution, placed on the Supreme Court by President Washington: “Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.36

5. THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT TO PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE MAJORITY, AND CONGRESS IS A BETTER PROTECTOR OF MINORITY RIGHTS THAN IS THE JUDICIARY

A. George Washington: “[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution... enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail.37

B. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.38

C. The Judiciary is now regularly anti-majoritarian.

D. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is not to protect the minority from the majority.

E. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the minority from the majority; the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect every citizen, whether in the minority or the majority, from the intrusion upon their rights by government.

F. Congress is a better guardian of the people and the minority than are the courts.

G. Federalist #51: “The members of the Legislative department . . . are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. . . . they are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.39

H. In 1875, Congress banned all segregation,40 but in 1882, the Supreme Court struck down that law.41 While the Court is often praised today for ending segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, what the Court actually did in that case was only to reverse its own position that had kept segregation alive 70 longer than Congress’ ban.

I. Thomas Jefferson: “When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.42

It's a sexy bill

2012-02-26T07:58:00.004-05:00

Yes, Rep. Joe Carr and I are going to try to pass the the "Porn not corn" tax swap bill this year. What the bill does is increase the tax on hard core pornography, escort services, strip clubs and other such products and the resulting income will be dedicated to lowering the tax on groceries. It is not a true tax increase in that it is revenue neutral for the state.

The fiscal study says the tax swap will generate $55,000,000.00 in Tennessee in the first year alone (and it looks pretty stable after that) and the income generated would be dedicated to lowering the tax on food by up to triple (or even possibly more) the amount the governor has proposed in the next year.

This will put one simple question out there to legislators. Why would you vote for cheap porn, escorts and strippers and against lowering the tax on food?

Its like they are taking "stupid" pills

2012-02-23T22:48:00.007-05:00

It must be a bad sign from God. The last few days all signs have been pointing to one clear fact. People are now actually taking "stupid" pills.

That is the only explanation I can think of.

As I was sitting in my office a group of trial lawyers came in to talk about issues of the day. The latest idea they hate of mine is a bill that says in some legal situations a loser pays winners legal fees type scenario is reasonable to stop some frivolous lawsuits. I can see how some people may be against it at all levels, but some of the arguments used to fight against it make me want to ram my head into a wall.

As we debated the issue, one argument they used was the classic "lady who burned her crotch with hot coffee and got millions from McDonald's". This was supposed to show me how well the current system worked. That one alone about made my brain spin around inside of my head. Then the topper for the day was the case where someone had their car stolen and the car thief crashed it and killed someone in another car. One of the people who was hit by the car sued. Not the criminal, but the actual owner of the car because they left their keys in the car.....And (after multiple, multiple appeals) they won because the keys in the unlocked car were just too tempting for the criminal to overcome.

It put me in mind of the court room scene from the comedy movie "Idiocracy". By what logic do these judgements get made?

The next day I met the same two lawyers at a lunch reception for the trial lawyers. Just for fun I threw them two questions.

I said "I was thinking about your hot coffee case and I have a question. If I smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for 20 years and I read the sign on the side of the pack that tells me "smoking causes cancer" every day and then I do get cancer. Whose fault is it?"

The two lawyers looked at each other unsure how to respond. They pondered, argued back and forth for about 10 minutes before breaking down and admitting it was maybe, possibly, partly, just a little bit the smokers fault.... but not in all cases.

My gosh. we are in trouble! I thought. This is the future of the legal profession.

I then went to the assessment of blame question. I asked one of the lawyers (A pretty young girl)

"As to who is at fault for criminal activity, If you wear a mini skirt does that put you at fault if you are raped because you tempted the criminal?"

"Well!!! That's different!!!" She exclaimed.

Really? Well, maybe, possibly, partly, just a little bit. The more I thought about it the more it is like if a rapist caught a disease from one of his victims and then gave the disease to his girlfriend who later sued the rape victim for wearing a mini skirt.

Yes, I know, still totally ridiculous.

But that is what we are dealing with in the courts now and probably into the future. People having to pay thousands to defend themselves against these type cases. My hope is in common sense (like this person) will spring back into vogue and people will see the error of their ways. My last hope is the "brilliant" pills come on the market soon.

P.S. Stealing a video from a vendor at a trial lawyer reception to try and prove me wrong does not help your argument.

Debate rundown

2012-02-22T22:02:00.006-05:00

Again I was working late at the office so I missed the first few minutes but here it goes.

Winner.
Newt. He looked stately, wise and sharp. He seemed limited in time or possibly it was just he did more concise responses but no slips and solid throughout. Good on education, abortion and attacking on Romney earmarks. Looked bad sitting down and leaning back.

Second
Romney. good answers. Took some hits on earmarks and Romney care but slick elsewhere and attacking Santorum. Terrible cocky closing.

Third
Santorum. Good finish but got bogged down on the minutia of Washington earmarks and Washington politics. It may have been justified but it was the wrong issues to argue on and too complex for Joe six pack. Bobbie Fisher didn't talk about the pawn push offence of chess. He spoke about beating the Russians and why he was the best....And then he went crazy.

Last.
Paul. Can we just get a recording of Paul's 2 points and just put them on a loop somewhere? It is just getting silly. Spending on the war. Yes. We get it.

CNN
Questions were tired and let candidates run off the track.

Joke of the week

2012-02-22T19:19:00.000-05:00

A man in Topeka, Kansas decided to write a book about churches around the country. He started by flying to San Francisco and started working east from there. Going to a very large church, he began taking photographs and making notes. He spotted a golden telephone on the vestibule wall and was intrigued with a sign, which read "Calls: $10,000 a minute." Seeking out the pastor he asked about the phone and the sign. The pastor answered that this golden phone is, in fact, a direct line to heaven and if he pays the price he can talk directly to GOD.

The man thanked the pastor and continued on his way. As he continued to visit churches in Seattle, Houston, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and many cities and towns all around the United States , he found more phones same sign, and the same answer from each pastor.

Finally, he arrived in. Knoxville, Tn. Upon entering a church in the beautiful state of Tennessee, behold, he saw the usual golden telephone.But THIS time, the sign read "Calls: 35 cents".

Fascinated, he asked to talk to the pastor, "Reverend, I have been in cities all across the country and in each church I have found this golden telephone and have been told it is a direct line to Heaven and that I could talk to GOD, but in the other churches the cost was $10,000 a minute. Your sign reads only 35 cents
a call. Why?"

The pastor, smiling broadly, replied, "Son, you're in Tennessee now - you're in God's Country. It's a local call."

Anti litter bill killed

2012-02-21T23:21:00.002-05:00

My bill to stop litter was killed today in the commerce committee. 2-7. The newspaper industry fought against it saying they thought they should have the right to throw their papers in your yard no matter if you wanted them or not.

Infuriating!!!

2012-02-21T11:43:00.003-05:00

While I support the peoples right to protest their government something happened today that about sent me over the edge (I know, not such a far trip). Today a few minutes before I was to go to state and local government committee I started to receive calls on one of the governors bills. The bill would have changed criteria for keeping an employee from seniority based to ability based. When the calls came in one of the people on the other end of the line wanted to let me know they were a 25 year state employee in the department of human services. She wanted to let me know she was against the bill.

I interrupted her with one question. "Are you on the government clock right now?"

"Yes. Yes I am but I consider this part of my job".

Wow! that made my blood boil! I cant count the number of times I have heard from some departments how over worked they are. How they don't have time to do any more work. Then I get a call like this.

I let her know that while I appreciate her right of free speech on legislation I do not think the state should be paying her to do it.

I feel the same way about e mails supporting or opposing legislation sent from government computers. Send all you want but not from a government computer or government e mail address or on government time.

I will be bringing an amendment to the TEAM bill that will amend it so that sort of activity can not happen on government time or on a government computer or e mails. This sort of lobbying is getting out of control.

Impossible!!

2012-02-21T08:21:00.003-05:00

Students shot on campus by outside criminal element? Impossible! Guns are not allowed on campus!! That would mean that criminals are not obeying the law and we all know that is not possible. The campus had assured us that all legal honest gun owners have been disarmed.

"We are doing it now, but it isn't happening."

2012-02-21T08:07:00.003-05:00

The Tennessean has done an article on the classroom protection act saying it isn't needed. Although I have offered several examples of where it is and has happened in Tennessee they say it is not happening.

They then go on to say how the Nashville school system is having outside, Gay and Lesbian groups come in to train teachers on how to teach about homosexuality to young children.....

The bill also could affect training that dozens of Metro school staffers have taken part in since the start of the school year. Just Monday, about 100 staffers sat through training about sexual orientation and gender identity.
The session, part of a new training program the district put in place for counselors and social workers, was hosted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Adults were asked questions about their own knowledge and feelings about sexual orientation and were given recommendations for how to answer student questions. They also were given stickers and posters declaring “safe spaces” in schools.
Much of what they’ve learned could go by the wayside if the legislation passes, said Bagwell and GLSEN spokesman Brad Palmertree.
“I think we would be limited in our resources,” Bagwell said. “We would have to think differently about how we support those students.”
GLSEN provided a copy of its 48-page “Safe Space Kit,” which recommends that school staffers “ask questions that demonstrate understanding, acceptance and compassion” when a student discloses sexual orientation to them.
It also recommends that they offer referrals to other counselors, hotlines and youth groups.
In response to derogatory language and name-calling, the guide recommends addressing the situation immediately and trying to turn conflicts into lessons.
(Page 3 of 3)
Bagwell said such training has inched toward becoming standard ....

....High school counselors have called on Sheffer for advice about bathroom policies for transgender students and the formation of diversity-minded student groups.
“Young people want to talk about it,” she said. “They have questions. They want to process it.”
Clubs' fate unclearSome educators wonder what will happen to student clubs such as Gay Straight Alliances.
In particular, Martin Luther King Jr. Magnet in Nashville enrolls students from seventh through 12th grades. The Gay Straight Alliance there includes about 15 seventh- and eighth-graders of the 45 who regularly attend, said faculty adviser Rita GoForth.
She said new rules could ban the younger students, since meetings often include sexuality discussions and guest speakers.
“We pretty much support kids to be whatever they are,” GoForth said. “We support kids to ask the questions about sexuality.”
At the elementary school level, GLSEN’s national office recently distributed a new curriculum about family and gender diversity. That too, Palmertree said, could become inaccessible.

And as for being contacted for information on this legislation, the reported says calls to the sponsors went unanswered. I had my publicly listed cell phone with me all weekend and at no time did I miss a call or leave a call unresponded to. If someone wants to do a one sided article that is fine but don't say the other side was not available for comment.

Joke of the week

2012-02-19T17:59:00.001-05:00

*The Abbott and Costello Routine on Unemployment*

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It's about 9%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: You just said 9%.
ABBOTT: 9% unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right: 9% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that's 9%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE! Is it 9% or 16%?
ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you're out of work you're unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have
to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ... they're out of work!
ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who
look for work. It wouldn't be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they're ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work... Those who are
out of work stopped looking. They gave up. If you give up, you're no
longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles, that would count as
less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment goes down just because you don't look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it
would be 16%. You don't want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?
COSTELLO: That would be frightening.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to
bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier
of the two is to just stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.
COSTELLO: I don't even know what I just said!

And now you know why President Obama's unemployment figures are improving.

When openness leads to corruption

2012-02-16T16:51:00.003-05:00

Shew! this is going to be a tough one but I will give it a try.

A lot is being made about a bill (SB2207) we are considering to open some information about contract negotiations for economic development. Some information will be made at least semi public. But not all.

What the governor has asked for is something Bredesen never did. Haslam wants to make sure the companies applying for state aid and contracts are strong enough to actually do what they are signing up for. Do they have cash reserves? What is their current cash flow? Do they have an organizational structure that can handle this type project? More or less can Company XYZ and Company ABC do what the state is about to give them money to help them do. Bredesen never asked these questions or for the information so now we are stuck with some dog companies that cant do what we gave them money for.

Haslam decided it was best to at least ask for some basic information of companies XYZ and ABC while in negotiations. Suddenly the Democrats got religion and jumped all over it. Why not let the people see all that information? The ownership of those companies should be known too. Otherwise it looks like a cover up shady backroom deal.

Where were they 3 years ago?

Why is it a big deal? A companies private cash flow information etc. is usually tightly held by a company. No one wants their competitors to know what kind of financial shape they are in or if they are planning a move. It could lead to hostile takeovers, stock volatility, employee panic and all sorts of bad things. To expose that information to the public, would be more a headache then most companies want for something that may not even work out. If no deal is made is an all downside type of thing and could squelch a company from entering negotiations about coming to or dealing with Tennessee.

The The big thing Democrats have keyed on is saying the names of the private ownership of a company now needs to be known and made public throughout negotiations and after an award of contract is made. Open, clean government right? Well, maybe. But maybe not so much. Lets look at a scenario. Two companies are negotiating for a contract. Company ABC and their competitor Company XYZ.

Lets for instance say Company XYZ is owned by a good friend of the person deciding the contract. Company ABC on the other hand is owned by you. Would you want the person deciding the winning bid to know before he makes his decision that his best buddy was a bidder or would you want them to do it blind and vote on the merits of your bid?

Post contract, lets say you own the company. Do you want to expose all the people who may have Lent you money to start your business? At what point would it stop? What if ownership was part of a performance contract? Would they have to expose to your competitors part of a performance contract of a top employee if that was part of their pay? That could start a bidding war for contractors and employees. What about companies who may have stock holders? Some companies may have thousands of stock holders or part owners. Some people may not even know they are "owners" as part of some 401K plan. Should the public know every single investment or investor you have ever made or have? Where do you draw the line?

We are working on it now.

No matter what, it will be more open then it ever was in the past. That is for sure. The hard part is drawing the line on what information is reasonable to give out as well as when and where you draw the line. Open government is good but too much could kill a lot of deals for Tennessee.

Now should we be making those deals in the first place? That is another question for another day....

Rep. Bill Harmon...OUT!

2012-02-16T12:13:00.002-05:00

Democrat Rep. Bill Harmon has said he will not seek re election to the state house of representatives. He may seek the state senate seat or possibly a mayors race.

Calling Dr Wang. Dr. Ming Wang.....

2012-02-15T20:47:00.002-05:00

As I am sure many people know, legislators go to a lot of receptions at night. The last of the 3 events I stopped at tonight was for the College Republicans. By the time I got to their event they were out of clean name tags. The girl at the reception table said I was welcome to take one of the pre made, but untaken, other tags and write my name on that over the old name.

Instead, I just picked up one of the name tags and slapped it on my jacket and went into the reception.

Dr. Ming Wang. AKA Senator Stacey Campfield.

I thought it was a little funny until a real doctor came up and actually thought I was the real Dr. Ming Wang.... Then I thought it was hilarious! I could only take a few minutes of him seriously going on and on about the groundbreaking work I did in the field of laser eye surgery. How I was a visionary, how he loved the things he read about me in the medical journals. How impressive it was that I scored perfect on the MCAT medical exams.

I told him how kind he was but I was just used to winging it and I guessed at about half the questions.

His eyes got huge for a second and he looked horrified but I could not hold back the laughter any longer.

No. I am not really Dr. Ming Wang....But I did stay at a The Comfort Inn last night.

HeHe :-0

Classroom protection act passes first committee

2012-02-15T20:31:00.002-05:00

The bill saying talk of sexuality in grades k-8 shall be limited to natural reproduction only, passed out of the house education subcommittee today.

Another step.

Bass may quit Democrat party

2012-02-15T16:30:00.002-05:00

Democrat Rep. Eddie Bass is thinking about quitting the Democrat party.

Sontany OUT!

2012-02-15T15:13:00.002-05:00

State rep. Janet Sontany of Nashville will not run again for the state house of Representatives. in 10 years in the former majority party Janet was able to pass orders of protection for cats.

Haslam dumps class size bill

2012-02-15T14:38:00.002-05:00

The bill to allow school systems to adjust classroom sizes is dead for the year. The governor saw there was limited support for the move and just killed it.

What I do.

2012-02-15T14:11:00.001-05:00

Anti litter and crime bill

2012-02-13T17:16:00.008-05:00

SB 2670 is coming up tomorrow. What that bill will do is cut down on the litter by people throwing non subscription newspapers in yards. It is also an anti crime bill because criminals see stacks of newspapers in a yard and figure the house is either empty or the owner are out of town. Ripe picking for thieves and vagrants. As amended, it will require people throwing the non subscription newspapers to put them within 2 feet of the door or in a newspaper box.

To my buddy Dave

2012-02-12T21:46:00.001-05:00

As you change the diapers of your first born at 3AM, remember...

And in his spare time....

2012-02-12T21:06:00.003-05:00

Not only did Abe Lincoln free the slaves, keep the union together and kick off the Republican party but according to this new movie coming out he had another hobby.

That's right. Hunting vampires! This has to go right up there with "Snakes on a plane"

silliness in government

2012-02-11T23:52:00.001-05:00

And I thought we were done with silly revenue streams.

Not looking good.

2012-02-11T23:31:00.003-05:00

The governors education plan is not looking good for passage. In fact I would say it is close to DOA. Half the bill has a chance. Allowing schools to set up incentive pay could pass.

His plan to allow school systems the flexibility to adjust classroom sizes has more of an uphill battle. I have seen little to nothing in the way of positive feedback on that part of the plan.

The no camping rule

2012-02-09T07:41:00.002-05:00

In the senate yesterday we passed out of the judiciary committee the "No camping" rule for state property. It is a move to say you don't have a right to throw up a camp site on state property without permission. It is a move to clean up the occupy/homeless tent city that has taken over the peoples legislative plaza.

It was an interesting forum that let all sides be heard. My top concern was the fear that it might allow at some point in the future limiting of protesters for any reason. I was assured it would not. It would only limit camping. I was also assured it would not stop someone from setting up a tent if permission was granted. In the end it passed with all but Morrarro voting in favor of the move and Ford passing on it.

Ron Ramsey on the occupation

2012-02-09T07:40:00.000-05:00

Dear Friend,

As you may be aware, a group known as Occupy Nashville has essentially taken up residence on War Memorial Plaza across the street from the Capitol. While describing themselves as protesters, they are actually something quite different.

Average protesters, usually on some defined day centered around a specific issue, march or congregate en mass to demand redress of a specific grievance. Normal protests can get loud and they can get rowdy. Frequently, they can last long into the night. On rare occasions, they can last a few days.

Occupy Nashville is quite a different animal. This protest is not really a protest at all. It is, as the name implies, an occupation. I value our constitutional rights — the freedom of speech most of all. Without the freedom to directly confront our leaders, our constitution isn’t worth the parchment on which it’s printed.

Whether from the left or the right, I appreciate people engaging their government.

However, to continue to ignore the reality of Occupy Nashville would be to shirk my duties as a public servant. I have to tell the truth and the truth is this: your War Memorial Plaza – a place dedicated to Tennesseans who paid the ultimate price in service to their nation and fellow citizens – is no longer a place for visitors. It is unsightly, it is unclean and, depending on the time of day, it is downright dangerous.

While the initial “Occupiers” may have started out with good intentions, their movement has been infiltrated and co-opted by the homeless in Nashville. Unsurprisingly, amongst the homeless population there is a distinct criminal element. In Occupy Nashville, this criminal element has found safe haven and justification for their lifestyle.

While the crimes committed in and around the Plaza run the gamut, several of the incident reports I have reviewed have alarmed me. From public sexual behavior to narcotics trafficking to assault, the criminal element surrounding Occupy Nashville has made a visit to our State Capitol more than unpleasant.

For example, a legislative employee standing in a bottom floor courtyard was recently urinated on by someone connected to the occupation.

This is disgraceful.

The Occupiers are not merely a nuisance with a blatant disregard for societal norms — they have become dangerous. I have reviewed paperwork from both Metro Police and the Tennessee Highway Patrol and seen reports that include threats of bodily harm by people with knives and other weapons.

One report I read particularly disturbed me because it affected young students here to learn about their Capitol: a homeless member of Occupy Nashville exposed himself in full view of students on a field trip.

A cursory glance at media coverage paints a very unsavory picture: a public brawl occurred on the Plaza on Christmas Day followed by a brazen act of arson in time for the New Year.

In essence, open acts of sex, drug use and violence you wouldn’t expect in an “R” rated movie are at times on full display on your War Memorial Plaza.

It saddens me because every year students from Tennessee schools visit our state capitol to learn about their government and see a very moving War Memorial dedicated to Tennesseans who died for their countrymen over the last 100 years. This year my advice to teachers looking to bring students here would be simple: stay home. I cannot in good conscience recommend the Capitol as a class trip destination at this time. I’m embarrassed to say it but it is the truth.

I hope and pray this situation will be resolved sooner rather then later and I can once again wholeheartedly recommend that visitors and students come to Nashville to learn how our government works.

Again, I support our constitution and embrace with open arms our rights of free speech and assembly. Liberal judges here in Nashville and on the federal bench can try and twist the law however they want but the reality is clear: this occupation has gone beyond speech and assembly and become an embarrassment — both to causes Occupy purports to support and the state of Tennessee at large.

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Ramsey
Lieutenant Governor
Speaker of the Senate

Latest dish on Newt in TN

2012-02-09T07:22:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Hamilton County GOP gave Speaker Gingrich a straw poll victory at their Lincoln Day dinner. This week, I'm happy to report that a much larger group of over 5,100 readers of "The Chattanoogan" newspaper gave Newt another win. Here are the results:
Newt Gingrich = 31%
Ron Paul = 28%
Mitt Romney = 26%
Rick Santurum = 15%

Oh, Now I get it.

2012-02-07T20:53:00.002-05:00

Stack it up

2012-02-06T08:36:00.002-05:00

Action Andy Sher drops the digits on who was good at fund raising this last year. Lets just say it was verrrrrry good for Republicans with at least a 3 to 1 advantage (But probably closer to a 4 to 1 advantage) in fundraising in a non election year. The caucus and top leadership pulled in about 3 million with Dems pulling in @ $700K. Rank and file R's and D's show similar disparities.

The funny thing I have realized about fundraising money it does not always go to the better idea. We had many of the same ideas when we were in the minority and Democrats still out raised Republicans by similar margins. It just goes to who ever is in power. As more Democrats seek other pastures expect more groups to flow support to those they expect to remain in power. Next years numbers could be even more of a stark contrast.

Haynes OUT!

2012-02-06T08:19:00.002-05:00

Senator Joe Haynes (D Nashville area) is will not be running again for the state senate this next year. Citing the new district lines that are no longer specially drawn to favor a Democrat, the wish to enjoy some retirement with family, fishing and good books his announcement came on Friday.

Best super bowl comercial

2012-02-05T22:19:00.000-05:00

Business Trip | CareerBuilder 2012 Big Game Commercial from CareerBuilder For Employers on Vimeo.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Power grab.

2012-02-05T08:00:00.002-05:00

The governor this year is looking to take more control over many of the states boards and agencies. Currently, many boards are multi member panels with a internally appointed leader or in some cases no direct leader. In many cases The governor wants one central leader appointed by him with a board of people under his appointee. One question remains in my mind as to who would have the final power of decisions. The group or the leader.

Tennessee has traditionally been a state with a strong legislature and a weak governor. It kept the power closer to the people as the individual legislators are more responsive to the day to day wants and needs of its citizens then the governor is. It has been pretty good reasoning resulting in a fairly well run state. I see little reason to change that formula in most cases. While money and plans for dramatic change often come from the top down, the best ideas and leaders usually come from the bottom up. Most of the agencies mentioned are administrative in nature and in most cases one leader is not necessarily needed. One of the problems we already have in state government (probably at most all levels of government) is people in these groups trying to set up their own little fiefdoms with themselves as king. I think a central leader might only exacerbate this problem.

Komen caves

2012-02-04T09:44:00.005-05:00

Susan G Komen has caved to the pro abortion on demand crowd and will continue funding the worlds largest abortion provider. Bad move in many ways. First they called attention to a fact that most people did not know. That they were funding the abortion industry. Bad, but not so bad when they told people they were stopping the funding. In fact I was hearing that funding flooded into Susan G. when they made the announcement.

Then the pro abortion crowd went nuts!! The money is the end all be all to them so they went all frontal attack to force SGK to flip flop and return funding to the abortion provider. Clearly it was not about funding to fight breast cancer. It was about Planned Parenthood getting the money because the money would not evaporate if PP did not get it. It would still go to cancer research, testing and awareness. In fact more would. Just not to that one provider.

In the end, they caved to the pro abort crowd. In the process they angered both the pro aborts, the pro lifers who gave money and now feel cheated and the oblivious who did not know they were funding the abortion provider until this story came out but now do (and they don't like it).

Do I need to provide the link that Rush Limbaugh talked about showing the tie between abortion and breast cancer for anyone?

UMMMM, about that little e mail list.

2012-02-03T09:42:00.003-05:00

Well as you may know I was featured on a couple of national TV shows, CNN, MSNBC etc. Yea, I got a few calls. A few e mails from both sides but let me just say one call blew them all away.

This one caller (Who I did not even talk to) called and was telling my staff how he was a big fan of what I was doing. How he thought my bill on sex ed for young children was great but needed a better name (He suggested "The classroom protection act") and he went on about how he wanted me to be the vice presidential candidate.

Ah well. That's was all very kind of him to say. I get that kind of sentiment some times but I try to not let it go to my head. My staff thanked him and I did like the name.

Anyway, the caller went on saying he had a huge e mail list and was going to send it out to all his friends and let them know what he thought so I better be ready for some calls and e mails.

Heh, well I mean come on. We thought how big can his e mail list be? 50? 100 people? How many of them would bother to call or send an e mail off of that? 5? 10 at best? No big deal we thought.

Well it went out yesterday at about 3PM. At about 3:05 the calls started to flood in. WAAAAAAAY faster then my people could handle them. At the end of the day they just had to just walk out of the office with the phone still ringing non stop.

This morning when my people came in to the office they said the voice mailbox was overloaded and refused to take more messages. I checked my legislative e mail list and I have blown past 2000 unique e mails in support of my legislation and it is still growing.

Ummmm, yea, about that little e mail list. I guess it was on the plus side of 200,000 and the guy is some sort of pretty big player in the conservative movement. If I can ever sift through all the e mails I will try to send him one of thanks and try to get on his list. Till then if you sent me something it could be a while before I get to read and respond to it. The same for blog comments that are in the mix as well waiting for moderation. I will take them one by one but I have a lot of thank you e mails to read and send out.

I had a feeling

2012-02-03T07:51:00.003-05:00

The worlds largest abortion provider (Planned Parenthood) has filed lawsuit for not winning the grant the state gives away from the money it gets from the federal government.

This mess all started and became a problem again because language was mysteriously put in the budget last year nullifying language I had put in the budget that would have had all the title X funds the state receives be used by government health care clinics.

When my wording was nullified, it allowed the money to go back out for bid to outside providers. This year Planned Parenthood lost that bid. Now they are suing because of that loss. Had the money been kept "in house" it would not have been an issue as nothing requires the state to give funds to outside providers.

In other pro life news, Susan G. Komen has also pulled their funding from the abortion provider as well. This is great news as so often there are charity events for Susan G. that I would like to attend or support but I had always refused because of their funding for Planned Parenthood.

AIDS expert admits I was right.

2012-02-02T23:50:00.002-05:00

Mom is that you?

2012-02-02T22:47:00.011-05:00

Let me start by saying I have been getting a hand full of calls this last week from around the nation. Some good. Some bad. We appreciate the good ones (Mostly from Tennessee) and listen to the bad ones (they mostly seem to come from California and New York) when they are reasonable.

Unfortunately, most of the bad calls sound like the callers are coming unglued. They get deleted at the first curse word. Usually, they only make it about 5 words in to their rant that all seem to go some version of "You are a homophobic #$%^%..." And then my guys just hang up the phone or delete the message.

For some reason this one they played all the way through. In fact my staff listened to it again. Several times. Their laughter caught my attention and I heard it. I thought it was hilarious. They called in their friends and played it for them. I think half the capitol has heard it by now. Who ever this (Man/Woman you decide) is has missed their true calling. I couldn't rant like that if I wanted to. It is one of those things that is so bad it is good. I wish I knew who sent it because I would almost want to call them up, shake their hand and let them know how much fun we have had with it.

Where most hate callers paint their rhetoric in crayon, this person is truly the Davinci of diss. For a second there I thought they were going to start cussing in tongues.

You are forewarned there is some harsh language (they tell me how they want me to go on a permanent vacation some place warm... But lets just say it is not Jamaica). If you want to hear it, and you will have to cut and paste this.

www.davemanut.com/stacey.wav

It is limited to 2 and a half minutes because that is the limit for my answering machine so I probably missed the big finish where they ask where they can send a donation to my campaign. Who knows.

Joke of the week (Isnt that Al Gore's sign?)

2012-02-02T19:12:00.002-05:00

Something new

2012-02-02T14:19:00.001-05:00

Proven right

2012-02-02T09:57:00.006-05:00

I was on WTVF (News Channel 5) this morning talking about AIDS and AIDS transmission with the host and A gentleman from "Nashville Cares" a group that specializes in STDs/AIDS transmission.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say this gentleman was pro homosexual agenda but to his credit, as I spoke and stated my facts on AIDS transmission, he completely agreed with my numbers, proof and assertions of facts. I will try to get the video up later (They told me they only record the first half hour) but it will re air at 3PM today.

In that regard I give him credit. Some of the other pro homosexual agenda "Facts" on AIDS transmission his group have advocated to Nashville school children I disagree with vehemently. Mainly that the cause of AIDS was low self esteem.

This is just one slide they use to teach sex ed in schools.

Klan good, Stacey bad.

2012-02-01T09:55:00.002-05:00

Wow! The owner of the restaurant who refused me service on Sunday was just on the radio and bragged how she happily served the Klan members when they had a rally in Knoxville but she stands by refusing me service.

Wow. Just wow.

More fun than a barrel of monkeys

2012-01-30T14:23:00.008-05:00

As you may have read I was asked to leave a restaurant in Knoxville because my beliefs did not support the owners beliefs on homosexuality. I had not said anything. I was just standing there waiting for a table when the owner came up and started yelling at me calling me names and telling me they were not going to serve me because of my alleged beliefs saying I hate gays. I said in as calm a way as I could that I don't hate gays and the things I have said were backed up by the CDC. I offered to send her the links.

I have been quite open and clear on my beliefs and have backed them up with facts from the CDC and others. Unfortunately some people do not let facts get in the way of their prejudice.

She looked confused on what to do for a second then she started to yell and call me names again so I figured it was better to just leave. As Jesus said, "If you are not welcomed in a town shake the dust off your feet and move on". My friends and I went to latitude 35 and had a good breakfast.

The cries of "Ha ha. we showed him!" fall flat to me. It is not I who lost out. My friends and I still had a good meal. We just gave our money to a more gracious host.

What was showen was a lack of professionalism. In my legislative role I have always had an open door to any of my constituency. Gay rights groups have been in my office several times and I would like to think that even though we may disagree on some issues I have always treated them graciously.

In my private business (Property rental) I have rented to people of all races and creeds. Black, white, Asians, gay, straight, christian and non christian alike. I do not discriminate. I wonder how the owner of the restaurant would act toward another restaurant if the shoe were on the other foot and the business refused service to a gay person? I know I would not eat there.

In the 60's my grandfather sat at the lunch counters with the blacks in Knoxville to help break up the segregation of the races. I guess some people still support segregation. Just segregation of thought. Some people have told me my civil rights were violated under the 1964 civil rights act in that a person can not be denied service based on their religious beliefs. (I am catholic and the catholic church does not support the act of homosexuality) I had not thought about that much.

I just figured this is just another example of the open minded tolerant left. They claim tolerances for divergent points of view.....Until someone actually has one. Then they don't know how to handle it.

This says it all

2012-01-29T18:33:00.003-05:00

As I said, the "Heterosexual AIDS epidemic" is a manufactured crisis to draw support for the Homosexual community.

This lays out the actual number and details.

The Rock of UT.

2012-01-29T10:46:00.000-05:00

On the Hubert Smith Radio show FM 90.3 in Knoxville.
(865) 974-2535

Thought of the day

2012-01-28T00:06:00.001-05:00

My own state motto "Tennessean is believin!"

So I was on this little show....

2012-01-27T23:53:00.013-05:00

As you may have heard I was on some little radio show to talk about my "don't teach gay" bill. After a few minutes, the host (Who shall we say was not of a receptive lifestyle) jumped topics and I made some comments on how the homosexual lifestyle was WAAAAAAY more risky then the hetero sexual lifestyle. Of course the regulars went bonkers. Here are some facts on the issues we covered.

Here are a few links with a compilation of facts found elsewhere mostly from the CDC

On the short lifespan of homosexuals,http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/feb/05021709

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdfOdds of getting AIDS through vaginal sex
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex

Many people love to throw around numbers from Africa and say the AIDS numbers are higher there for heterosexuals. This is true but mostly because in Africa it is common to practice anal sex as a form of birth control among prostitutes (an activity that is much more prevalent then in the US) and others. When I spoke on the radio show I was talking of vaginal heterosexual sex in the US. What are the odds here?

This was posted in the KNS today and are probably conservative numbers as it probably includes anal sex as a form of heterosexual sex (again, not what I was talking about).

"UNAIDS estimates that in the U.S., living with HIV as of 2009, 310,000 are women.The total US population as of 2010 is 308,745,538

Lets just go with about 50% are female = 154,372,000 female population.
Lets then say you take absolutely no care and sleep with anyone willy nilly. Your odds of getting a female with AIDS is 1 in @ 4970.

Lets go with the pro in the article who said on average, heterosexual intercourse between an infected person and a non infected person results in transmission of the disease about "one in a thousand times." (I assume this is without a condom)
Right off the bat that puts your odds of getting AIDS through heterosexual sex at about 1 in 5 million.

Most "Normal" people I imagine would also stay away from the IV drug users, hemophiliacs, known disease carriers, prostitutes and other high risk people. Also conceding a man less likely to receive the disease then a women because of the nature of sex, the odds of a man getting AIDS from a female are pretty low.
Add a condom and some common sense and you can add probably at least add a 0 to the number."

Who IS getting AIDS
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/ and http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm or
_http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609

I admit (As I did in the interview), I am not a historian on AIDS (If you listen to the actual uncut interview I was asked to tell what I had heard was the history of AIDS) The research on sex with a monkey being the first transmitter of AIDS has not been proven nor firmly dis proven. It is one of about 5 theories I was able to find on the source of AIDS. No credible source said any one was clearly definitive one way or the other.
It was first published I think in a book which documents the history of the AIDS epidemic is entitled "And the Band Played On." The author of "And the Band Played on" was appalled by the unsanitary and degrading behavior of homosexuals. He died of AIDS a year after his book was published.

The homosexual pilot comment was first printed in the American Journal of medicine article about "Patient 0". His name was Gaeton Dugas. While possibly not the first person with AIDS he is still widely considered the person who widely transmitted the modern outbreak of the disease in the gay community. I admit I gave him false credit. I said I thought he was a pilot as I recall. He was a flight attendant.

Here is a link on that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

As for the reason for the interview (My bill on parental responsibility of teaching sexuality to very young children) Here are some points of view for you to consider.

-It is a parents responsibility to decide when a child is ready to grasp such a complex issue as sexuality and what they want to tell the child about that complex subject. Not a teachers.

- All children develop mentally at different rates. I do not feel a teacher with an agenda (Be it pro
or con) is the appropriate person to decide "Now is the time" for an entire class of children just because they may think one way or another on an issue and want to espouse it.

-A teacher is not a trained child psychologist or psychiatrist and could do as much harm as good to a sexually confused child.

-I doubt many on the other side would want a teacher who said "Homosexuality is evil, dirty and wrong" just because they felt that it was what is appropriate, that it is what they thought the children needed to and were ready to hear. This bill ensures neutrality from teachers.

-Physically threatening behavior is what is and needs to remain covered for all groups. Not the sexuality of the victim. We already have anti bullying legislation passed in Tennessee (In fact I co sponsored it 2 or 3 years ago when it passed) so all children are protected from bullying in our schools.

-We do not need an un equal justice system that creates special separate classes of protected people that gets special protection under the law.

-Nor do we need to silence the first amendment rights of religious free speech of those in our schools whose family may hold different beliefs (as long as those beliefs are not physically threatening).

-While there is a scientific and educational need to mention the basics of heterosexuality when teaching the basics of reproduction (XY chromosomes, etc.) there is no scientific need to mention homosexuality as homosexuals do not naturally reproduce.

-We are falling behind the rest of the world in math, science, and English amongst other things. Tennessee ranks about 46th in most areas. Social engineering is just one less issue teachers should have to worry about teaching as part of their curricula.

Herron Out!!

2012-01-27T09:44:00.001-05:00

Democrat State senator Roy Herron sent out an e mail last night letting us all know he will be stepping down from the state senate in November. Here is a link to his press release.

Debate rundown

2012-01-26T22:01:00.004-05:00

1. Rick Santorum. Another good showing. Strong, confident and knowledgeable on key issues. Brought the whoopin' stick out on Romney for healthcare. Only down side was not having his wife present, but with 7 kids I couldn't blame her if she slept through the entire campaign.

2. This one was close I almost called it a tie between second and third but Romney gets the tip. Strong showing early and evaded attacks well, you could tell he had stacked the crowd but even the crowd couldn't help him from the merciless beating Santorum gave him. I was expecting the crowd to start to call out "Mercy!, Mercy!" (like at the end of the movie Braveheart) with the gutting Santorum gave him on Obamneycare.

3. Newt, Did OK on attacks and defence but it was more of a wash. Didn't show the cocky swagger and boldness that has propelled him in earlier debates but I think the crowd may have been an issue. Could have played up the Reagan angle a little more but I think he showed he has been rolling up some big endorsements. I was expecting possibly a little more of an attack on the court system when he talked about religion. I think the moon issue was a flop. Played well to the Latino community I am sure, but let Romney off the hook on immigration and other issues.

4. Ron Paul, OK, I know I have been a little hard on Ron Paul in the past but I honestly think this was one of his best showing. He didn't come across all screechy like he has in the past and I think he spoke well on the economy. Still needs to develop a little better long range talking points. He does not look healthy. In fact he looked down right frail.

5. CNN, Missed opportunities to ask about oil exploration in the gulf (Probably a big issue in Florida). I didn't like the question about Ron Paul's health even though he does look bad. The first lady question was a softball and really not necessary. I am getting tired of the candidates talking about the latest personal attacks the campaigns do. Debates are for issues.

Thought of the day.

2012-01-25T08:01:00.001-05:00

I was having a real problem logging on to my ipad and then I realized it was an etch a sketch and I don't have an ipad.

Bummer.

Fred Thompson endorses Newt!

2012-01-24T00:11:00.000-05:00

I am sure this won't hurt in Tennessee.

Quote of the day.

2012-01-23T08:46:00.000-05:00

"If Gingrich wins Florida, the Republican Establishment is going to have a meltdown that makes Three Mile Island look like a marshmallow roast."

John Heilemann

Data good, except for Pre K

2012-01-23T05:26:00.002-05:00

Oh Phil, it is so funny when you try to talk conservative but don't have the history to back up what you say.

You say you want the states to use data in education reform? OK, fine. How about we start with the data the state has recovered from the studies we have done on Pre K? Pre K has proven to be expensive, without lasting value and in some cases has actually even had a negative effect on children. Not just in one study, Not twice but three times in a row here in Tennessee. In fact, there has not been one single quantifiable study in Tennessee that has shown a positive net result for our investment.

Plug that into your little computer and see what pops out. Should we continue to keep funding it or put the money somewhere where it will actually help kids improve their educational results.

What does the data tell you?

Walk for life

2012-01-22T11:41:00.002-05:00

I will be joining hundreds of pro life supporters today for The Tennessee right to life's annual "Walk for life" today at 2:00. We will be start at Calvary Baptist church at 3200 Kingston pike and walk down to Tyson park just outside of UT. Please feel free to come and join us.

Back from South Carolina

2012-01-22T09:35:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I took a trip to South Carolina to try and help Newt Gingrich over the hump. I knew that state was going to be key. South Carolina had picked every Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan. We knew momentum had been building for Newt and a win in SC would really pump him up to the next level.

I was shadowing Newt's South Eastern Chairwoman (Maria Zack). She informed me that that when she first started working on the Newt Campaign "South East" meant everywhere not Iowa and New Hampshire. She said "We had 8 people on the team. Now we have over 70 and it grows every day". The momentum is really moving in the right direction. Maria was quite an interesting person in that she had been working with Newt for decades and had a ton of good background stories. She knew him as just a regular person. And that's how she spoke about him. She said one of the difference between him and other candidates was how hard he worked (She said he was personally putting out signs at 4:30 AM on election day)

When the day started there was real trepidation. There were monsoon type rains going on throughout the day in areas where Newt was expected to win and it was mostly clear where Romney was expected to do well. As the day rolled along though, we kept getting calls that despite the rain people were waiting in the rain, in lines to vote for Newt. The military vote (A huge population in SC) was coming out strong for Newt as well. Sort of a shock to me was how low Ron Paul polled. With his claims of close military ties I expected he might fair better then he did with that population but I learned that the campaigns polling was showing it was just the opposite. The huge active duty and retired military population did not like Ron Paul at all.

At 7 PM sharp we were getting exit polls that said it was already over and Newt was going to win hands down. WOW!! No one was expecting that! The news shot through the building like a lightening bolt. It was HUGE! The place erupted! People were shouting and cheering. Reporters from all over the nation and world were running all over the place asking questions of anyone and everyone they could grab ahold of. The crowd waiting to see the Newt victory speech were electrified and jacked up. Cheers of "USA! USA! USA!" were mixed in with chants of "Niki who?, Nikki who?, Nikki who?" For SC governor Nikki Haley who had come out for Romney and had been campaigning for him across the state.

As the numbers rolled in a double digit victory blew everyone away and sent everyone to another level of excitement. They were singing the "Pump up" music songs, Waving signs, lifting little children into the air to see Newt as he came in and was shaking hands. National and local dignitaries were all over the place.

Rick Santorum had a funny mix in the crowd. While his concession speech was being played the crowd chanted "Drop out now! Drop out now!" but I did not get the sense it was because they disliked Rick. More it was they saw the need to consolidate the conservative vote to elect a conservative in the primary. Sure enough when Newt spoke of his fellow competitors in the primary (He had kind words for all) The chants of "V.P., V.P., V.P." were quite strong when Newt spoke of Rick.

Newt just smiled.

Filed under "I told you so"

2012-01-20T10:44:00.003-05:00

Well what do you know. It seems the Iowa caucus was actually won by Rick Santorum after all. I hate to say it but I told you so the day they announced Romney the winner. Now, entire precincts are missing but even Romney is conceding Santorum won it.

Smart move on his part.

Romney already got all the bump he needed from the early claimed victory. Now, no one cares and the bump in cash and momentum it could have brought Santorum is all sucked up. The only change is in SC. Romney is now trailing as Newt is starting to collect the divided conservative vote. Romneys big hope is to re energise the flailing Santorum campaign and hope Rick can pull off enough support from Newt to let Romney squeak by for another victory. Conceding an empty Iowa victory to Santorum is his throwing a starving dog a bone in the hopes it eats his rival (Gingrich) in the end.

Grumbelings

2012-01-20T07:44:00.004-05:00

I am starting to hear grumblings about what I warned about 2 years ago.

Tenvesco.

The Tenvesco plan was a state taxpayer backed and funded "Bank" for loans to private companies who would "bring in jobs" into Tennessee. The down side was there was little to no recourse to recoup funds if the business failed to live up to expectations. A few years ago the state went ahead and pumped tens of millions of dollars into this plan in the name of "Economic development".

You may recall I feared it would turn into a slush fund for cooperate friends of government and never produce the jobs it promised. Frank Nicley did a great job railing against it on the house floor.

Sure enough, just like the switch grass fiasco, Tnvesco is following down the same path of failure. After all the money invested, under 200 jobs have been created. Cost for each job? Almost a million dollars each.

Let the investigations begin.

Hensly vs Cobb

2012-01-20T07:33:00.003-05:00

Rep. Joey Hensley has signed up to run for the new state senate seat in southern middle west Tennessee. Joey has been a long time conservative voice in the state house (I would rank him as probably among the 3-5 most conservative). He is also the state legislatures only medical doctor and has been a voice of reason for conservative medical legislation.

Former one term Democrat Rep. Ty Cobb has also decided to run for the seat. You may remember Cobb for the one bill he passed in his time in the legislature. Allowing fish tanks and bird cages in barber shops (no, I am not kidding). I think it was the key part of the Democrats "Jobs package".

Dems vote against giving Tipton Co. a Senator.

2012-01-20T07:12:00.005-05:00

Tipton county will have a senator.

The county was inadvertently left out of the legal wording for the senate redistricting plan and the plan had to be recalled from the governors desk to have the wording put back in. It was an accident by a heavily loaded, tired legal team and not a plot to punish Tipton County for sending Jimmy Naifeh to the state house for so many years.

Oddly, when the vote was made to add the wording back in, senate Democrats voted against the move. I guess Democrats really don't want Tipton County to have a senator after all.

Post debate wrap

2012-01-19T21:59:00.004-05:00

1. Santorum. Played the down home, underdog, Rudy Ruettiger angle great. I expected him to pull out a hard hat, a lunch pale and talk about mom and apple pie if the debate went much longer. He had the facts and points that really ran the debate and had a great closing. Unfortunately for him I don't think it really came across as presidential. He looked studied and all, just not quite ready. A little too underdog. Sorry, I think its back to the J.V. bench after Saturday Punky Brewster.

2. Gingrich. Great opening. Strong. You can never go wrong whacking CNN. Not quite an explosively huge night like last time but still a strong night. When he talked about big ideas and big change he came across as quite presidential to me. I about bust a gut as he contemplated if it was better saving the liberal media or letting them collapse. Oh, too dream....

3. Romney. He looked better then most of the time. Not quite as timid as usual but still on the defensive. A little dodgy. When he didn't like the question he would attack Obama instead of responding directly. Handled the Gingrich X wife question with class. Flopped on dealing with his tax records.

4. Paul. Not quite as way out, mean spirited, screechy as usual. Stuck to being anti war....On all issues....Again. As Huntzman was mister 1% I think Ron Paul is turning into mister 1 issue. I think even he realizes he can not explain a clear, positive vision for America moving forward that people relate to. More a consistant voter then a leader.

5. CNN. Come on! First question of the night is an attack against one candidate on his personal life in the form of a presidential question? When will the president vote on that? Well, they got Newkt as they deserved. The rest of the questions were good and the format was great until they tried to cut Paul out of the pro life question and got ripped by the crowd. Of course after the Santorum rebuttal I bet Paul wished they had let him go.

Tindell OUT!!

2012-01-19T12:14:00.002-05:00

State rep. Harry Tindell has announced he will not seek reelection in 2012. With the population shifts and the required changes needed to make the districts constitutional his district went from a 55-45 democrat leaning district to a 55-45 Republican leaning district.

PERRY OUT!!!

2012-01-19T10:07:00.003-05:00

Texas Governor Rick Perry just got off the phone with Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey telling him he did not need to come to SC. to be part of the post debate spin room. He is stepping aside in the presidential race.

Word is he will be supporting Newt Gingrich.

Anybody want to rank these

2012-01-18T07:55:00.002-05:00

The Tennessean has compiled the per diem totals for legislators. Unfortunately they are in no real order. Does anyone want to rank these by most per diem used to least?

Tonights debate

2012-01-17T00:04:00.003-05:00

First let me say I missed about the first 40 minutes of it so take that into account.

1. Newt. WOW! Crushing and I mean crushing debate. I cant say I have ever seen a standing O in a debate much less 3 of them. It was like he was throwing candy to kids in a parade or drilling a solo at some rock concert. Luckily, no underwear was thrown on to the stage.

2. Perry looked good. Still have not seen his daughter Katie in the crowd though.

3. Santorum. Boring and poorly designed wordy attacks on Newt had little effect.

4. Romney. I need to think of a level beyond extra boring but I can't. Looked twitchy like a long tailed cat in a rocking chair factory for a while.

5. Ron Paul. I think he only has about 2 responses and uses them no matter what the question is. I swear I think they could ask him what his favorite breakfast cereal was and he would say "We need to get out of these cereal wars and bring our troops home!" He is anti war. We get it. We got it the first 800 times he said it.

Good from the Duke

2012-01-16T08:55:00.001-05:00

Is this the job of government?

2012-01-15T10:35:00.005-05:00

As the Tennessee bill saying teachers should stay out of the homosexuality issue altogether is set to advance in the state house, left leaning editors and bloggers are now openly saying they plan to push their agenda in schools.

Children will be taught to endorse the homosexual agenda despite the beliefs of their parents, the managing editor of a homosexual newspaper in Canada has said.
Writing in the online edition of Xtra Vancouver, Robin Perelle blasted parents with traditional beliefs saying “your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms”.

Resilient
Last year it emerged that Stonewall, a homosexual pressure group in Britain, had been sending controversial teacher training packs to some primary schools....

Indoctrinate
Writing on an LGBT blog, Daniel Villarreal said: “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.”

He also said: “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

He added: “Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

Court battles slow immigration verification

2012-01-15T00:46:00.003-05:00

"Sunshine" lawsuits have hindered police from asking about immigration status of people who have been arrested who can not show any proof of their citizenship.

“As far as we’re concerned, we accomplished what we wanted to do, which was to eliminate the POST Commission policy,” he said after the meeting. “We consider this to be a victory — that’s not to say that we don’t have problems with the Secure Communities Program.”
The rules went into effect Jan. 1 after legislators last year enacted a law requiring the commission to create guidelines to deal with immigration issues at county jails. The guidelines boiled down to two questions asked of every suspect booked: “Where were you born?” and “Are you a U.S. citizen?”

Judicial hair splitting

2012-01-15T00:27:00.002-05:00

According to title VII Tennessee employers can willfully discriminate against transgender persons but the courts have taken their own point of view on the issue.

Creative plaintiff lawyers have successfully filed charges of discrimination based on gender identity issues by framing them as prohibited sex discrimination. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed its long held position that Title VII does protect employees from discrimination based on "sex-stereotyping."

In the case, an openly homosexual employee in Nashville was harassed by a co-worker. When he complained to his union, the union quit referring him jobs. He sued claiming discrimination and retaliation based on his sexual orientation.

The court held that while Title VII does not protect against discrimination for sexual orientation, employees who are discriminated against because they do not conform to traditional notions of what is appropriate for one's gender can sue for sex-stereotyping. Thus a male employee who is very effeminate may be able to successfully claim sex discrimination.

Oregon bans campus gun ban

2012-01-15T00:06:00.002-05:00

Another state over rules campuses from banning guns on campus for legal handgun carry permit holders.

A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals said that an Oregon University System ban on guns exceeds its authority and is invalid.

That means people with permits can pack concealed guns, said Di Saunders, spokeswoman for the university system.

"We don't have the authority to kick them off campus unless they show the weapons," she said.

But anyone brandishing a gun on campus would be approached immediately by security, she said.

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation that filed the suit challenging the gun ban, said as a practical matter the ruling does not change much.

"There are students and staff and visitors carrying guns on every campus of every college in this state every day," said Starrett, whose nonprofit group fights for Second Amendment constitutional rights. "My interest is having people who have power over other people conform to the same rules that everyone else is expected to conform to and not use their bureaucratic position as a way to harass, intimidate and humiliate people who are doing nothing wrong." ....

....The lawsuit grew out of a controversy in early 2009 over Western Oregon University's suspension of a student for packing a handgun, even though he had a permit.

The court ruled that while the State Board of Higher Education has authority to control and manage its property and to enact administrative rules, it cannot override a state law that says only the Legislature can regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms.

The university system rule that bans guns on university property "exceeds the agency's authority," the court wrote. The gun ban was developed in the 1970s and modified in 1991.

Rep. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, supported the firearms foundation in its suit and called the ruling a vindication for gun owners. She said she was concerned both about the university system's restrictions on guns and its overstepping its authority.

"How many other agencies are out there making up rules outside the law?" she asked. "I don't have a problem with someone carrying a gun on campus. That should make it safer to be on campus, to have a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun."

Thought of the day.

2012-01-14T22:20:00.002-05:00

"Better to speak truth with metaphor....than to cater to the likes of an editor."

The race for second place

2012-01-14T10:03:00.006-05:00

The big fight in the senate was not Republican vs. Democrat. It was Democrat Vs Democrat. The senate had to take several long breaks as democrats were given time to see if they wanted any adjustments withing the boundaries that were democrat controlled. Jimmy Kyle made moves to stick a knife in Beverly Morrero by drawing himself into her district and making some other population changes.

As you can imagine she was not too happy with this plan.

In the end, many don't think it will matter at all either way. The district has grown into a majority minority district (Something minorities have wanted for decades but refused under the Democrat rule that gerrymandered minority number for political gain) The Republican plan allowed minorities what they had asked for for. A more centralized State senate district.

Now Kyle
and Morrero
both live in that @70% minority district....

But so does State Rep. G.A. Hardaway.

I see a change in the not too distant future.

Is that Senator Hardaway I see?

2012-01-13T23:14:00.006-05:00

Dems Clash in Wake of Redistricting: MyFoxMEMPHIS.com

Kelo in Tennessee

2012-01-13T20:32:00.005-05:00

From the "It can never happen here" file, the stealing of land from one private owner to give to another private owner is having huge negative blowback in Tennessee. In just one case costing tens of millions of dollars. Money that the government subsidised to pay for land taken to give to a private developer.

But guess what? A jury has now said the land was worth twice what was paid when taking it.

A Nashville judge last month upheld a jury ruling that said MDHA vastly undervalued a piece of property owned by Tower Investments. MDHA, which was in charge of acquiring land for the Music City Center project, said the land was worth $14.8 million. But a jury said the fair value was $30.4 million.
The jury’s ruling busted MDHA’s budget for land acquisition and put the budget for the entire project in serious jeopardy. Most of the project’s miniscule $15 million reserve would be nearly entirely sapped if the jury’s verdict is upheld.

I could almost cry.....

But I won't.

I see a bail out in the future

2012-01-12T22:48:00.002-05:00

If ever there was a reason for a bail out. This is it.

Frank lets fly

2012-01-12T21:47:00.002-05:00

The battle of ideology is pretty cut and dry in this one.

A Republican candidate for Anderson County mayor said she wouldn't have supported the property tax increase county commissioners approved last year.

"You don't raise taxes in a down economy," Terry Frank told attendees at an Anderson County Tea Party-sponsored forum Thursday night. Frank also vowed to veto any proposed tax increases over the next two years if elected mayor.

Frank's rival in the March 6 Republican primary, County Commissioner Tim Isbel, defended his motion to raise taxes by 16.2 cents last year

Hey, I know that dude!

2012-01-12T21:18:00.002-05:00

No, not the one on the left. The third guy from the right sitting down. That's Justin Wilson Tennessee comptroller of the treasury featured in the USA Today photo. Justin flew up to NH last week for a few days to check out Newt.

UT CRs won't get fooled again

2012-01-12T21:04:00.000-05:00

Even USSC unanimous against Obama

2012-01-12T10:22:00.004-05:00

Even the crazies on the US Supreme court unanimously agree and stand against Obama on his fight against religious freedom.

As a soothsayer Newt Gingrich called it out in the last debate.

Well done

2012-01-12T07:56:00.004-05:00

Brandon Gee over at the Tennessean has done a very good article about the concerns many people have concerning the court of the judiciary and their set of new rules. As many loyal readers of this blog may know I brought up my own concerns on these changes about a week ago.

Gee does a much better job then I in researching the legal history and showing how the supreme court my be moving in an unconstitutional direction (Dare I say "once again"?.....Yes, I dare) Once again.

In Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White, the court ruled that a state restriction on judges and judicial candidates discussing political issues was unconstitutional on free speech grounds. And in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the court said that contributions to political candidates are a form of free speech.
“I believe that provision, along with several other provisions, may very well infringe on a judge’s right to free speech,” said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick, who helped write the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 2002 White case as a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia. In addition to the prohibition on campaign contributions, Fitzpatrick said he also is troubled by language that restricts judges from making statements on pending and impending cases. “The writing was on the wall, I think, in that opinion, that this type of language is unconstitutional.”
Davidson County Circuit Judge Amanda McClendon said she would like to be able to give money to candidates if she wishes, and said she doesn’t understand why the state Supreme Court makes an exception in the ethics code that allows judges to purchase tickets to political fundraisers and dinners.
“That surprised me,” McClendon said. “I read that to mean the only way I could contribute to a candidate is if they invite me to dinner. That means my presence at an event. I don’t understand how that’s better.”

Chief Justice Clark conceded that prohibitions on political activity lie in a “gray area.”
“Our court, after carefully looking at that, has decided to go in a more conservative direction because we believe that more likely avoids a situation where judges could be perceived of improperly lending the prestige of their office to others,” she said. “If they ultimately strike down language like ours, we will remove it, but it hasn’t been resolved.”
Clark said some state lawmakers already have told her they appreciate the Supreme Court’s adoption of a new ethics code.
The Republican-led Tennessee General Assembly is poised to consider several proposed judicial system reforms — which critics say are better characterized as attacks.
Clark said she hopes “reasonable people” will recognize that the court has taken a meaningful step to address criticisms that the state judiciary has failed at policing itself. A bill that would overhaul the body that investigates ethical complaints against judges and determines discipline is scheduled to be voted on by the full Senate in February.

Speaking about recusal, if judges should not be allowed to decide on cases where financial considerations have been made to their campaign, can someone please explain to me why judges should not have recused themselves on cases where they were deciding the constitutionality of the way they got their job that pays their probably 100% of their personal bills? (Judicial selection)

The spectacular 7th

2012-01-11T22:01:00.002-05:00

As the district lines come out and things twist and turn the one thing I think is cool is that my senate district (district 7) looks like the shape of a 7 on its back. How cool is that?

Dreaming of lines and the 4 corners.

2012-01-11T07:03:00.008-05:00

The first day of session in the books and it was all about the new district lines. Sitting on the judiciary committee I had a front row seat to it all. So much so it was what I was dreaming about as I awoke this morning. As many people know, new Republican Senator Kerry Roberts is looking at a serious short end of the stick and it had me and many others twisted up inside all day long.

With the numbers, court cases and population shifts he is looking like he will be more or less drawn out of his own district in November and will be living in Sen. Summervilles district. Some might say let them fight it out in an August primary but Sen. Summerville will not be up for election until 2014.

For Kerry, most of his district lines came down to 2 big factors. The AG said he did not want to defend more then 8 districts that had split (partial) counties in them and the population of each district had to be with in @ 9-10% (5% up or down) deviation of the average population of all districts.

In the end with all the best efforts made we could get one piece in place for him but not the other. Its rotten. No one likes it. But that's how it is looking like it is going to go down. We are still all open to changes but there does not look to be a solution.

Other changes are also being considered. Some Democrats have come to the table and are looking for some concessions on their district lines. Leadership said they are willing to listen to alternative solutions but it is difficult to do much without sending ripple effect waves across the entire state breaking the limits in place somewhere else.

Some people think the Dems will sue no matter what. The thought is no matter the legality, they will play the "Four corners" and try and hold the implementation up in court until after the next elections are over. It is doubtful if this can be done or not but it is the thought.

If by chance they are successful it could throw the entire state into chaos. When the lines drawn up by Republicans are later held up in court, it could require another state wide election cycle because those elected held under the old lines would not potentially be from the true district. If by chance the Dems win, the drawing of lines issue could start all over. The legislature could be made to draw a new plan or the courts could try to draw their own plan. Knowing all the time our leadership put into what we have, just to come up with what we did, it would be a mess taking years and cost the state millions of dollars to defend in court. A no win for anyone except possibly a few democrats that might be able to hang on to their seats for an extra year or two at a cost of millions to the state.

So far the dems have not offered any alternative solutions but have been satisfied voting no on our plans in committee (showing intent to protest).

Game on!

2012-01-10T13:48:00.002-05:00

The legislature is now in session.

Told you so.

2012-01-10T01:06:00.001-05:00

Rep. Tony Shipley and Dale ford are cleared of any wrongdoing in the probe against them.

Lets go quickly, but not rush.

2012-01-08T21:39:00.003-05:00

There is a lot of talk going around about the desire to get out of session by as early as April. It is getting to sound like that the only goal some people have and that getting out of session is all that matters. While some of the benefits of getting out early are beneficial (like savings of per diem dollars), that alone should not over rule all other considerations.

Our opponents had their way since forever. They too could pass a budget that balanced and leave town. I don't recall a single legislator running on the issue of "Elect me and we will finish session by date X". We need to remember that people did not elect us over our opponents just to pass a sloppy budget and get out of session early. They wanted changes. Not to use analysis as a form of paralysis. We have had years to talk about what we wanted to do when we took over. Now it is our time to do it. Not just rush in and scurry out as fast as we can.

Who was heated?

2012-01-08T20:04:00.000-05:00

Presidential debate rundown

2012-01-07T22:39:00.005-05:00

Let me start by saying I missed the first few minutes so it could have all happened then and I missed it. But here is my ranking for tonight's debate.

1. Rick Santorum- sounded knowledgeable on a wide range of issues but still had the look of pain throughout. Please, really, Someone show him how to smile without looking like he just smelled a dead animal in the road.

2. Newt Gingrich- Best lines of the night but was limited for time and on topics. I loved his comments on the Obama war on religion but I think there needs to be a drinking game for the word "Fundamental".

3. Ron Paul- Looked like that cranky old man I predicted he would but looked better when talking economic policy. His false attacks are starting to be called out. He looks more like a smear machine for Romney then a person who wants to show why he is best.

4. John Huntsman- Fourth by not screwing up big and he had a few ideas. Talking Chinese looked pompous but I am sure he locked up the key block of New Hampshire Mandarin Chinese Republicans vote.

5. Mitt Romney- No screw ups but talked in fluff all night. Probably did not lose much but showed and told me nothing.

6. Perry- Saying he would go back to Iraq ended it for him. He is done and I think he knows it.

7. ABC news- Slow, terrible, goofy questions by George Steponopopolopolis. Where did that banning birth control question come from? Come on! Let it go! Diane Sawyer looked and sounded like she had 3 or 4 glasses of wine before showing up and was ready to go to sleep. Overall I thought it was a boring sleeper of a debate myself so I can't really blame her.

Court rules no refund for false father in Iraq

2012-01-06T21:43:00.003-05:00

The problems of a defrauded father rears its ugly head again. This time on an overseas soldier defending his country.

Christopher Childers was sued for child support while he was in Iraq between November 2007 and January 2009. The state filed a motion for default judgment that he was the father, and the Tennessee Department of Human Services took child support from his military paycheck.

Childers said he never got a letter ordering him to report for a DNA test. After returning from Iraq, a DNA test determined he was not the father. A juvenile court judge ordered the state to reimburse Childers $2,735 that was taken from his wages, but the Court of Appeals of Tennessee overturned that ruling Thursday.

To me this is just an ugly injustice. Possibly this year we can get the votes to change things.

It is time to pass the baby daddy bill.

New congressional districts.

2012-01-06T15:06:00.001-05:00

The new congressional districts can be found here.

Congressional maps out today

2012-01-06T11:29:00.001-05:00

Word is that the rough drafts of the congressional district lines should be available for view later today.

Oh no he didn't!!!!

2012-01-05T23:25:00.003-05:00

Oh yes he did!!

Democrat leader Rep Mike Turner says all blacks are drug using welfare mothers with no license when talking about Republican legislation.

“ They’ve had the voter ID where they’re disenfranchising African Americans. Now they want to drug-test welfare moms. All this is race-oriented.”

Why does he think it is only black people who are on drugs? On welfare? Who don't have a license? Talk about your negative stereotypes!!

On AC 360 tonight

2012-01-05T12:24:00.002-05:00

I may be on AC 360 (Anderson Cooper 360) tonight on CNN talking about gay bullying. I am not 100% sure at this point if it is a complete go. I just did the pre interview but being in Knoxville CNN is not sure if they can find a local studio to film and link up at.