May I present your visual guide for the Lieberman-Warner bill debate?

Where in the heck to begin?  You want to talk about the biggest growth in government we’ve seen in a long time?  This so-called man-induced-inferno-future that will fry America’s children and kill off every known Arctic critter is going to be cured by the great government bureaucrats.  The legislation may not be called Lieberman-Warner, but it will look a lot like it when the ideas contained in its pages pass (unless we raise sufficient hell.)

Dad gum.  Why don’t these politicians just start wearing white suits with mandarin collars.  Miracles can be worked…with your taxdollars!!!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!  Hallelujah!!  

Benny Hinn–an inspiration to political miracle healers.

Is it a bad movie?  Am I Alice in Wonderland?  I’m on zero meds–so I know it’s not side effects.

When did it all happen?  When did BOTH Democrats AND Republicans decide that government was going to be the end-all, cure-all?  And when did we decide that man can really set about to reduce the temperature of the earth?  Where’s the proof?

But alas, the statesmen of our nation have moved forward with the debate.  Unfortunately both Tennessee Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, have purchased Gore’s snake-oil.  Heck, they stocked up on it. Unconvinced of the sheer foolishness of the entire theory and unwilling to believe that when the propagandized public puts down the remote to read the electric bills and the gas bills and the fuel bills and the food bills and every other bill that will also reflect the rising energy bills, they will revolt.  

Go ahead.  Test the public.  Their belief in climate change is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Both Corker and Alexander have retreated to the typical, failing GOP response of the last decade or so, and that is, they buy into the Democrat idea and then they try to behave conservatively by being for it a little bit less and a little more moderately.  Do you understand what I’m saying?  Like a temperance director.

GOP Church Lady: OK, Democrats.  We agree, but moderation is key!

Allow me to use modern terminology.  Say a big whig Democrat Governor wants to build a big underground fundraising hut for the political class.  Instead of saying that we don’t need to spend any taxdollars on such a fundraising, party bunker that will only be used by those in the favor of a sitting Governor, the Republicans would say something like: “we should only spend 10 million on the bunker, not the Democrat 20 million.  See, aren’t we conservative?”

Man, it just doesn’t work…especially if you get into a battle over health care (for children of course!) or any other issue in the long list of political pandering issues.  Look at SCHIP.  Doofus Republicans put it in so they wouldn’t look mean then they end up looking mean when the Democrats seek to grow it exponentially and Republicans try to stem the tide.  Or, me too…but not as much!!

I’m praying tonight for Senator Inhofe.  Bless him.  He must be about to pull his hair out.  I know if I am, then he really is.

“Oh, Terry.  You’re so extreme!”  Isn’t that the call of the RINO?

Please, you don’t achieve any victories by walking over to the enemy camp, crawling into the sleeping bag and cooking breakfast for the entire team the next morning.

I fully understand politics.  And compromise is the outcome.  But compromise is achieved when two opposing sides do battle, NOT when one sides starts waving the white flag before the battle has even begun!

Cap and trade is about crippling America on the global playing field.  I don’t care where in the heck the auction funds go…it’s the beginning of the end for our exceptional America.

Now let’s look at Tennessee’s Bill Frist on the pr trail for McLame:

Yesterday I had the privilege of welcoming Republican presidential candidate John McCain to Tennessee.  Sen. McCain brought the Straight Talk Express to Nashville, where he held a town hall meeting at the Ryman Auditorium (historic home of the Grand Ole Opry) and had the opportunity to talk with voters from throughout Tennessee.

During the question and answer session, Sen. McCain repeatedly demonstrated his sound judgment and the value his years of experience would bring to the White House. 

In a discussion on the importance of increasing energy independence, Sen. McCain emphasized finding alternative sources of energy to reduce our reliance on supplies from foreign nations … some of which openly harbor ill will for our country.  He also recognized that Tennessee is prepared to lead with nuclear energy and talked about the successes some foreign countries have had with the alternative energy source.

Please notice that Frist leaves out that Lieberman-Warner, the green-eco-terrorist-boondoggle bill currently being debated, used to be the McCain-Lieberman bill!  

And McCain is opposed to opening up access to America’s own resources, too!

Senator Alexander spoke this afternoon on the legislation.  I don’t have the transcript, but basically he said (not transcribed, just my notes):

No cap and trade on the whole economy—only on the “power plants”

This would be effective in controlling the amount of carbon we produce.

Would this increase the price of electricity?  Yes, it would.

And on the auction process: “Money” would go back to the “people”–people who pay for electricity.

We could do “low carbon” fuel standard–require the suppliers of fuel to LOWER the carbon content of transportation fuels by 5% of energy unit in 2023 and 10% by 2028.

Unlike cap and trade system which is ineffective in terms of reducing carbon in fuel, this would be effective and require a certain amount of reduction…

But, we really need to be talking about energy independence…

Senator Alexander’s best, most common sense moment of his speech is here (from today’s floor speech on the Lieberman bill): lamardrillforoil.

And to give him credit, he’s one of the Senators who has been pushing for offshore exploration and opening up drilling in ANWR.  He’s been pushing for awhile, though with all the public outcry and the current petition drives, he could amp up the effort a bit more.  Please, thank him for at least that.

AM Update: By the way, it looks as if Senator Corker’s plan regarding proceeds from auctions mirrors Robert Reich—yes, THE Robert Reich. Reich was the U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. 

Says Reich in this morning’s Wall Street Journal:

That’s why it’s important that all revenues from carbon auctions be cycled back to citizens. And rather than launch another endless debate over how and to whom – a payroll tax cut for people earning under the median wage, or a cut in capital gains? – it would be well to agree to the simplest possible formula: Every adult citizen should receive an equal share. If the carbon auction yields $150 billion in the first year, for example, each of America’s 150 million adult citizens should receive a Treasury check that year of $1,000.

Are more taxes on the way? Yes, it’s looking that way. Believe me, you’re not safe until these folks wrap up session.  Governor Bredesen’s Revenue Hounds are always looking for new ways to separate you from your hard-earned dollar and here’s the latest effort.

Revenue officials like to call it “closing loopholes” but I call it more money for bigger government and less money in your pocket.  Thanks to a smart heads up via Steve Gill comes this bit of info found at Instapundit:

Tennessee Department of Revenue Circulates Draft of “Technical Corrections” Bill  4-23-2008     

Each year, late in the Tennessee legislative session, the Administration and the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) release what they call the Technical Corrections Bill. The Bill typically contains multiple targeted changes to state tax law, some small and some not so small, depending on whether you are in the cross-hairs of the bill. The Bill is scheduled to be released later this week (or next). A preliminary draft includes proposed changes with significant potential impact on businesses in Tennessee. Please note that the draft is touted as “VERY preliminary” and states that “many sections will need to be revised and/or added before the amendment is finalized.”

Digital Products/iPOD Tax. The Bill contains sweeping legislation that would subject downloaded sales of digital media, including music videos, motion pictures, news and entertainment programs, music, ringtones, electronic books, etc. to the retail sales tax. Under current law digitally delivered goods are not taxable unless delivered in a tangible form. 

And notice they even mention “news.”  What the…?

Per the usual, I suggest you contact your State Representatives and State Senators ASAP.  Remember, you know best how to spend your money better than Phil Bredesen does.

Countrymen!  Lend me your ear!  I, Phil the Extravagant, want to tax what you hear!!

Here’s the full piece from Waller Law as linked from Instapundit:

Tennessee Department of Revenue Circulates Draft of “Technical Corrections” Bill  4-23-2008     

Each year, late in the Tennessee legislative session, the Administration and the Tennessee Department of Revenue (TDOR) release what they call the Technical Corrections Bill. The Bill typically contains multiple targeted changes to state tax law, some small and some not so small, depending on whether you are in the cross-hairs of the bill. The Bill is scheduled to be released later this week (or next). A preliminary draft includes proposed changes with significant potential impact on businesses in Tennessee. Please note that the draft is touted as “VERY preliminary” and states that “many sections will need to be revised and/or added before the amendment is finalized.”

Digital Products/iPOD Tax. The Bill contains sweeping legislation that would subject downloaded sales of digital media, including music videos, motion pictures, news and entertainment programs, music, ringtones, electronic books, etc. to the retail sales tax. Under current law digitally delivered goods are not taxable unless delivered in a tangible form.

Sales Taxes Paid by Lodging Industry. Under this provision of the Bill, “hotels, motels, inns, and other dealers that offer lodging accommodations” would have to pay sales taxes on items they provide to guests that currently are folded into room rates (linens, bathroom supplies, breakfast bar items, manager’s receptions’ drinks, in-room coffee, etc.). Under the Bill, lodging providers with restaurants could avoid paying sales tax on food purchases by offering guests coupons to restaurants that sell and serve the same food to non-guests. This portion of the Bill would reverse a 2000 decision by the Tennessee Court of Appeals exempting hotels from paying sales tax on such items.

Diversified Investing Funds. The Bill imposes a new requirement on a fund to qualify for the (more…)

I’m sorry I haven’t blogged in the last couple of days. I’m up to my eyeballs in work…and you know, you’ve got to make hay while the sun shines.

The following post was inspired by the Wall Street Journal and the silly jabs at social conservatives made by former GOP candidate and blogger Bob Krumm who calls us “theocrats.”

Is Social Conservatism to blame for GOP losses?

Is social conservatism to blame for GOP setbacks in Congress? Despite what many a Rudy backer believes, social conservatives are hardly to blame, in fact they’ve been the last pillar that’s kept the House of Pachyderm from collapsing. You don’t blame the last man standing in a gun fight for losing the war.

Take yesterday’s Wall Street Journal front page article yesterday headlined “GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote” as an example of the misunderstanding–or better yet, the intentional misdirect. The subtitle of this article reads “Deficit Hawks Defect As Social Issues Prevail; Mr. Cooper Swaps Sides.” The WSJ/NBC polling data shows that in September, 37% of business professionals and managers identify themselves as Republican or leaning Republican, down from 44% three years ago.

You’d think we social conservatives were to blame for losing the “business” vote. But the article goes on to display several graphs of a recent WSJ/NBC poll that asks questions such as “Which party would do a better job at reducing the federal deficit?” They also ask who does a better job of dealing with the economy, controlling government spending, and dealing with taxes. And guess what? Republicans get their rear-ends whooped by the Dems on every question!

This polling news is nothing new to the average GOP grassroots man on the street. We’ve been griping for quite awhile. And it’s really nothing new either as we look back almost a year ago to the 2006 heavy bleed. Club for Growth polled 15 swing districts in the fall ‘06 elections where GOP members got their hats handed to them. Respondents said they trusted the Democrats to control spending better than the Republicans. Did they give the Democrat a chance to sit in Congress because they were sick of the Republican standing up for God and family? Hardly.

I’m tired of the scape-goating by the liberal wing of our GOP who look down their noses at fly-over America. The Wall Street Journal chose to pull out and highlight in big, bold font this little gem: “Social conservatives tend to be relatively lower-income, less educated, concentrated in the South and West, and newer to the party than many old-line Republicans.” You mean they are the average American that decides elections?!?

It must pain these libs that we ALL get to vote.

Let’s just face reality here. The GOP is trapped in a cycle called Be Like Them. In order to maintain a majority, many of our foolish GOP leaders thought they’d try to govern as Dem-Lite. You know what I mean–the big spending, big government plan with less calories. Take SCHIP as an example. We’re the rubes who put it in thinking that we’d look all swell and compassionate by adding a few more kids to the government rolls. And guess what, you can’t win a PR battle in a spending duel with the Democrats. We’re trying to stop the train as Congressional Democrats seek to pull wealthy 25 year old “children” onto the government teat as Speaker Pelosi is carrying around a child and his Elmo doll while pointing at the GOP monsters.

It’s almost neurotic to now see an attack on social conservatism as if it’s to blame for losses at the ballot box. We lose seats by adopting the Be Like Them strategy in the arena of fiscal conservatism so we’re going to sell out social conservatism too? How ignorant.

News reports this week detailed a speech by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who was asked to give the British Conservatives a strategy plan for winning in Great Britain. It’s amusing irony from a Governor who hasn’t accomplished much of anything except giving the Democrats just about everything they want–not to mention that he’s failed to build the GOP in California. Did I miss any news of a Republican majority in California?

Shooting at the heart of the GOP hasn’t delivered any big GOP wins in California.

British Conservatives can’t see the noses on their own faces. And inviting Arnold is proof. They’ve already BEEN following the Guvinator’s plan–and it’s called Be Like Them or in their case, Labour-Lite. And it’s failed to win the Conservatives any majority, nay, in fact they’ve been relegated to the status of irrelevant. It seems many a GOP moderate in this nation seeks to be permanently irrelevant as well.

Look. The GOP can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be a party that welcomes social conservatism and fiscal restraint at the same time.

Social conservatives give the GOP a heart. They’re the folks who man the phone lines, who put up signs, who knock on doors. But they will also migrate. Harold Ford Jr. didn’t come so close to knocking off Bob Corker by giving socially liberal speeches. If both candidates like Jesus and the R’s can’t even control their spending impulses, then it’s a real toss up, isn’t it?

Ronald Reagan gave the GOP a new brand name. He strayed from the old-line Republicanism–the same old-line that kept us in permanent minority status in Congress. He called for prayer in school while he called for strangling government. He made us a majority because the same folks identified by the WSJ as “uneducated” and “concentrated in the South and West” liked the message he delivered. Despite what these elitists believe, even the uneducated can spot a spending orgy.

And like the front line in a football match-up, when our offense gets pushed to the left, we leave a nice hole for some lucky Dem to shoot straight up the middle. How do you think Heath Shuler and Jim Webb made it to the goal line?

How has all this happened? It’s simple…yet complicated by terrorism and Islamo-fascism. Many a so called neo-con joined us under the tent because many of the heartland GOP understood the need for a strong national defense and a response to decades of terrorist acts that escalated to a 9/11. But while we welcomed them as former liberals, they mistook their GOP baptism as an opportunity to reject the heart and soul of the party brought back to life by Ronald Reagan. There is room in our party for such foreign policy hawks, but because we’re dancing with them doesn’t mean they get to pick the music. As we lose seats, they try to point their fingers at family values. But they’re not pointing in the right direction.

Instead of picking Arnold to strategize how to capture a new Conservative majority in England, they’d have been much better off calling Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. And so should the head-honchos in our GOP. The pork-slashing, corruption fighting 43 year-old mother and Governor has 89% approval ratings with only a 4% unfavorable rating. She can show us a thing or two about how to get it done. And it’s called living up to the trademark.

Beautiful pork-slashing Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin went as far as slashing the infamous Bridge-to-nowhere.

I believe my party has the best ideas. But we need leaders to enact those ideas. And trying to blame social conservatism is a failing strategy, especially when polling shows that it’s about the spending, stupid. As I’ve said many times on the radio program, there’s a chance that we might be able to pull it off by choosing a socially liberal, gun grabbing former New York City mayor as our GOP presidential nominee, just as if you cut the head off a chicken, it’s body will still run around the coop for awhile. Likewise, if we cut the heart out of the elephant, she may still continue to move and perhaps even lumber over the finish line…but she won’t live to carry any more GOP members along.

It’s time for the ivory tower Republicans to take a cold, hard look in the mirror. It’s not the flag waving, gun-toting, pro-life, stand by the Ten Commandment American’s fault that we aren’t winning…so stop trying to kick us out. The GOP is a minority without us, and history proves it.

Would you be alarmed if you discovered your child had to sign a confidentiality agreement promising that he could not tell you about what he learned at school?  You can bet you boots I’d not only be alarmed, but enraged.  But that is exactly what happened at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Illinois.  The 14-year old freshman class was ordered to attend a “gay” seminar with discussions of a sexual nature, however, students were required to sign an agreement that they would NOT tell their parents.  Shocking!

After word managed to leak out, District Supt. George Fornero responded  that the situation was partly “a mistake.”  He went on to say that the confidentiality agreement wasn’t right and that the district would be honest with parents in the future.  And on what grounds should we believe that?

In a similar case that sheds light on just who has authority over your children, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by parent David Parker. Parker and his wife Tonia had requested that they be notified when adults were planning to discuss transgenderism or homosexuality with their kindergartner.  Despite Parker’s request, their child was still exposed to the adult themes and again, in 2nd grade…the school refused to provide notification.

In the ruling, Judge Wolf makes the claim that discussions of homosexuality are “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”   Wolf also writes in his dismissal order that “It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations.”

Uh, no, it’s not.  It’s the school’s job to teach Johnny the three R’s…and I don’t mean reuse, recycle, and renew.  You can teach elementary children how not to discriminate without raising issues of sexuality…a confusing and inappropriate topic for  young children.

To me, the most amazing statement from Judge Wolf is this: “The Constitution does not permit them [the parents] to prescribe what those children will be taught.”  Does that make you feel nervous?

Look, I’m not writing this column to scare you to death.  But I am saying you need to pay close attention to any attempts to erode your parental rights.    State Representative Matthew Hill (R) has sponsored a bill that helps reinforce your parental rights and recognizes the importance of keeping parents informed of what your children are partaking in and being exposed to in school.

House Bill 905 requires that within 2 weeks of the beginning of the school year, each school shall notifiy you, the parent(s), of all clubs or organizations available to your child.  You would also be apprised of the mission or purposes of the clubs, the names of the faculty, adult sponsors, and facilitators of the clubs, the names of any local, state, or national organizations affiliated with the club, and financial requirements of the club.  To ensure that proper openness exists between you and the school, the bill would also require that a student wishing to participate in a club receive a written permission slip signed by you, the parent or legal guardian.

It is well within your rights to know what is going on with your child in a school that you pay for.  Call your representatives and urge them to support Representative Hill’s bill…or you may find yourself in the same situation as parents at North Newton High School in Newton, Mass. who were banned from attending a seminar that discussed sexual themes such as “will I ever have sex?” and where kids can go to meet homosexuals.   Contact you legislators and tell them you support Hill’s bill.  It’s being sponsored by Senator Dwayne Bunch in the Senate.

The first hurdle it must clear is the Education Committee on March 21, where it is scheduled for hearing.  Members of the Education Committe are as follows:

36 Legislative Plaza
Phone (615) 741-4811

* Les Winningham, Chair
* Tommie Brown, Vice-Chair
* Joe Towns, Jr., Secretary

Harry Brooks, Jim Coley, Barbara Cooper, Dolores Gresham, Beth Harwell, John Hood, Phillip Johnson, Ulysses Jones, Jr., Ron Lollar, Mark Maddox, Michael McDonald, Gerald McCormick, Richard Montgomery, Larry Turner and John Mark Windle.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Matthew Hill is in pdf format here:HB0905.pdf

The dismissal order by Judge Wolf discussed in this write up is here: wolf_dismissal_order_feb07.pdf

East Tennessee Republican Senator Raymond Finney is taking a lot of heat on the internet blogs and chat rooms right now for his resolution that asks Tennessee’s Education Commissioner to answer questions about creation and evolution.

While his idea is being dismissed as ignorant, I predict Senator Finney’s resolution will spark one of the great debates of our time in Tennessee.

Regardless of what the blogs say, the public at large elected Senator Finney on a platform that fully and openly reflected his belief that America is a Godly nation. His political advertisements boldly stated his support for public display of the Ten Commandments as well as his willingness to defend issues of faith at the state level.

Senator Finney didn’t run a fraudulent campaign. He knocked off a powerful incumbent, a rarely achieved feat, while being open and honest about his views. A majority of voters in his district agreed with him…and now he’s delivering on his promises.

The goal of Senator Finney’s resolution is to allow schools to teach creationism or intelligent design in addition to the currently taught theory of evolution.

No doubt this idea will cause an outrage among editors and professors across the state. But Senator Finney isn’t on a one man crusade. His views reflect his district, his state, and the nation at large.

In a Feb. 28th story on the subject by WATE 6 News Reporter Amelia Daniels, one mother responded, “I definitely think it should be in the textbooks, I think it should be fair representation between all theories.”

And that mother is not alone. In a 2005 NBC News Poll conducted by polling organizations Peter Hart and Bill McInturff, 33% of respondents believed in evolution as the explanation for the origin of life, while 57% chose the Biblical account.

A nationwide CBS News/New York Times Poll from Nov. of 2004 showed that 65% of respondents favored teaching creation along with evolution in schools while 29% opposed the idea.

A Pew Research Center survey released in Aug. 2005 stated “most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas ­ particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives ­ have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism.”

While Senator Finney will witness a vocal opposition with powerful megaphones on editorial pages and many a blog, he has the support of a clear majority of the people in this state that both ideas have a place in the classroom. Senator Finney’s efforts reflect democracy in action–he is giving a voice to the people who believe in the idea he is pushing. Finney has the guts to represent his constituency and I truly support and admire his courage.

***************

Mark Rose has a great piece over at Right Minded on the subject entitled “In the name of science.”

I heard Steve Gill do an interview on Thursday regarding a survey from Family Security Matters. I wrote an opinion column on the survey results. Here goes, if you’re interested.
The old saying goes that the eye is the window to the soul. If so, the American soul sees a breast. Ads, books, magazines, teachers, moms, teens, stars, singers…even Grandmas have them on display. Great costs are expended and much suffering endured to make sure that if they weren’t seen before…you’ll really see them now!

Pills, push-up bras, silicon and saline implants, even a new boob growing beer—all have been thrust upon our cultural scene so as to show that “Super-size it!” isn’t just for fries and a coke at McDonalds. You can’t swing a dead cat without risk of lodging it in cleavage somewhere.

Of course, such mammary display isn’t of the National Geographic variety—the nurturing symbolism of motherhood and family. No, in our oh so progressive era, it’s more of a literal symbol of boobery—a snapshot in time of national ignorance when women revel in expressing their complete and utter liberation by offering their buxom bosoms as an appetizer to the main course of no commitment. Why even the married squeeze their orbital trophies into tiny tees as a tempting treat to be gawked at and yearned for…an art perfected by religious viewing devotion to Desperate Housewives.

Perhaps when women joining men in the ranks of being sexual predators became vogue, then habit, there was no longer any manly sense that women need protecting. That may sound like music to the feminist ear, but it’s more along the lines of turning society on its head (or rather a key element to taking the man out of men!)

Many may be shocked by the latest survey of our youth studying to become America’s leaders. Conducted for Family Security Matters by ESL Insights, the national survey of U.S. college men and women showed that 40% of women would consider defending America by joining the armed services if America went to war compared to just 14% of men. The most “startling finding” by ESL however, was the “percentage of men who say they would not take up arms…even if one million Americans died. 49% of college men say they wouldn’t. 80% of the college women surveyed say they would.”

When the number of children living in fatherless homes continues to rise past 34% in this nation (making us the world leader), is it really so shocking that the American male wouldn’t fight for something he won’t even stick around to raise? Can our society continue to thrive when it will not awaken from the delusion that progress means the continued emasculation and darn near eradication of a man from the picture of family life?

Twenty one years ago author George Gilder wrote in Men and Marriage that “a society of families both constrains male aggressions and channels them toward the protection and support of family and society. With the breakdown of families, the economy also declines, as the long term efforts of male providers give way to short term and predatory economic behavior. An emasculated state neither can defend itself against male outlaws and exploiters, muggers and terrorists, hijackers and assassins, nor can achieve the economic growth to finance the welfare programs and police efforts required by a culture in chaos.”

“Similarly in the international arena, an emasculated politics is incapable of sustaining an effective national defense. Rather than defending society, the young men attack it and exalt macho foreign potentates and desperadoes.”

Does that answer the survey, or what??

Being a conservative, I’ve always argued that people don’t appreciate or properly care for the goods and services given to them for free. Welfare only works when people are given a helping hand…not a hand out. And perhaps the sexual liberation of today’s ladies is equally a failing proposition. What is offered up so freely is neither respected nor worth fighting for in the eyes of the recipient. Buttoning up might not only hold in the chest, but may hold together a nation.

A.C. Kleinheider reports of a rumor delivered by Dem activist Larry Woods on Steve Gill’s Saturday show:

Larry Woods just shared a big rumor with the Gill audience. He said that he heard that Andrea Conte, the Governor’s wife, may be interested in running for public office possibly running against Lincoln Davis in the 2010 Democratic primary for Governor.

Surely, Woods is pulling our leg, right? Or is someone pulling his?

I could see that. After all, I’m sure she’s not happy with the possibility of a pro-life, prayerful, marriage is between a man and a woman, anti-income tax Democrat like Lincoln Davis.  Unless with Dave Cooley gone, she can sufficiently Hillary-ize Bredesen’s second term.

The possiblity makes an intro to my column from this weekend on Governor Bredesen:

Published 1/21/07

Gov. Bredesen’s inauguration is this weekend and he’s already laying out plans for his next four years in office. In an interview in the Tennessean, he’s already indicated that he believes a tax increase on gas “is justified” and that we can look for such an increase during his term. The idea of a statewide property tax is also floating around and Bredesen hasn’t ruled it out either.  State Comptroller John Morgan has been traveling the speaking circuit to sell the necessity of the new tax.

Meanwhile, last year in the legislature, Tennessee government saw a surplus of over 400 million dollars…all of it promptly spent on a host of goodies, despite the calls from many Republicans to return it to you, the tax payer, by either sending it back, or eliminating the sales tax on food.

This legislative session, Republicans are gearing up once again to take the bull by the horns and attempt to eliminate the grocery tax. Gov. Bredesen is opposed to the idea of removing tax from groceries although Speaker Naifeh, who leads the Democrat majority in the Tennessee legislature, has indicated that he would be willing to eliminate such a tax if alternative revenue could be found.

Governor Bredesen now has cigarettes in his targets (despite a Dec. 7 article by the Tennessean that cites “the report that since 2002 Tennessee, as have Michigan and Missouri, have never spent any of its $1.3 billion tobacco-settlement payout on stop-smoking programs.”) Bredesen plans to increase taxes on each pack…perhaps that’s the reason he doesn’t really care if people stop smoking.  He wants the revenue for his own pet projects.

But in Knoxville, Representative Stacey Campfield has come up with a new tax, and though I’m generally never for more taxes, I like Campfield’s idea.  He proposes to increase the tax on the sale of pornography and related  products, as well as enact fees and service taxes for escort services, strip clubs, and the like.  He proposes the porn tax as a swap in order to remove the sales tax on food, or at least a portion thereof.

Already, the ACLU chapter  is hinting that there may be legal challenges to the bill and the ink hasn’t even been set to paper yet.  A curious alliance that appeared in Thursday’s Knox. News Sentinel grouped the ACLU with  Bredesen in skepticism over the idea.  Bredesen sniped that he was suspect of the constitutionality of such a bill and equated pornography with critics who write unfavorable things about him.

Said Gov. Bredesen of Campfield’s bill: “I hope he will take a quick look at the Constitution before he comes by the office,” said Bredesen. “I’d like it if we could put a tax on articles that are critical of the governor.”

How could the Governor even begin to compare an opinion piece over his policies with sexually explicit hard core films that may be protected as free speech, but undoubtedly cause harm to many families in our community?  Campfield’s not outlawing it, he’s proposing to tax it.

The Governor’s second term is already shaping up to have a much more liberal outlook than his first.  Tax increases, multiculturalism (his picture of a Muslim on his Christmas card), and protecting porn from extra taxation.  Be sure to make your voices heard, unless you plan for Tennessee to look more like Massachusetts.

In Germany, declining birthrates have led politicians to start giving out money to encourage couples to have children. This week, Reuters reports “benefits worth up to 25,200 euros ($33,470)” for working couples having children.

It seems that bureaucrats have finally done the math and realized that fewer people actually means fewer tax dollars to play with…and on the serious side, fewer dollars will be available to care for an aging population.

Outside of Muslim populations, I’ve noted before the declining birthrates in Europe–currently at 1.45 child per woman (2.1 being replacement rate). Birthrates in the U.S. would barely maintain the status quo if it weren’t for immigration and the high birthrates among Hispanics.

What does this matter to you in Clinton, Tennessee? Nothing…if you’re just about dead and don’t care about the world you leave behind.

But what if you are concerned about your own elderly future and the future of the world? If so, then it’s time to pay attention.

Responding to a question I asked as to why people weren’t having babies, an admitted left-winger answered on another site: “As a 48-year-old single heterosexual male with no progeny [children], I have to ask why are we trying to get in a breeding war with the Third World? Should we not be channeling our resources in order to continue a First World existence? I do agree that we are becoming more greedy and selfish; that is very Much why I chose NOT to reproduce. I simply am not in favor of returning to a frontier existence.”

I find it odd that many who revel in the cultural liberties of modern life and drink plentifully at the fountain of our nation’s proud era of equal rights and freedom, should turn a blind eye to the fact that it is the Muslim population that is predicted to account for 70% of the world’s population growth in the next 100 years. Pew Forum notes that Muslim population growth has tripled in the just the last 30 years on the European continent.

While Britney Spears and Paris Hilton party with no panties today, mere differences in birthrates paint the picture of a future where the realities of Muslim culture are drastically less than equality for women. Britney and Paris could no longer enjoy the optional luxury of being the divas of American promiscuity and “trampiness”.

There is nothing noble about declining birthrates. There is a glaring hypocrisy in those who knowingly and admittedly advocate for a selfish existence whereby they might enjoy the freedoms of their time, for the statistical indicators point to a looming battle over the very values that enable their current liberties, unless the culture of Islamic life faces changing attitudes. In other words, if you like the American way of life, it might not be a good idea to turn the baby-making over to a culture of men who blame women for being raped.

While it might be honorable to offer up your own elderly suffering as a sacrifice to using less earthly “resources,” it might not be polite to allow such suffering for a fellow aging or sick person who needs a loving hand to care for him. That’s not a frontier existence, it’s worse.

God’s message of “be fruitful and multiply” is timeless…and it’s an apt message for even non-believers in the culture of the West.

I apologize for no posts this morning. Kids’ basketball games, wrestling matches, loads of work, and internet glitches.
Anyhow, here’s a column, if you’re interested:

When General George Patton looked out over the countryside, he often believed that he had fought on the same battlefields before. His idea was along the lines of reincarnation—that his spirit self had actually been there before. I don’t share that belief with Patton, but I do believe the battles are often the same.

In our age of reason, we see so many battles erupting left and right..many of them between those who choose to submit to God, and those who instead choose to worship intellect.

Man can do both, that is, submit, yet also enjoy the fruits of human intelligence. But for some reason unknown to me, there are many who seek to crush the very idea of “God,” and their political agendas reflect that desire. Their goals are based on the assumption that if man is educated enough, he will divorce himself from wrongdoing.

The belief is that a prosperous and educated man can surpass human nature, that there is no “evil” per se in this world. In their eyes, molestation, murder, rape, theft, war, abuse, and cruelty are all the results of a failure to fully expand and stimulate the mind.

Our politicians don’t have to stand up and give a speech that admits or even recognizes this line of thinking. We can see it in their legislation, in their policies, and their recommendations.

At the national level, the Baker-Hamilton Report on what to do about Iraq is the latest example of the belief that man has moved beyond the lessons of history and the habits of human nature. A famous remark that is timeless in its truth is that “those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.” The authors of the Report have received plenty of “book learning,” but they fail to account for the heart of man and the motivations of his soul.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker has yet to be sworn in, yet he has already stepped out onto the stage of national spotlight, and stated on CBS Face the Nation that we might need to sit down and talk with Iran. Corker’s comments were a prelude to the same naive thinking prevalent in the Baker-Hamilton report. Somehow the thinking is along the lines of: “if we get some smart people in here, Iranian madman Ahmadinejad will forget his hatred for the West and Israel.”

It’s kind of like thinking that if you put a pretty rabbit in a cage with a tiger instead of an ugly one, the tiger won’t eat it.

Those who are putting all their eggs in the basket of reason seem to think that because we can split an atom and tackle the dynamics of DNA, that we should be able to “reason” with those who seek to destroy. The fall and rise of Winston Churchill is the same battle on a different field.

Churchill understood Hitler’s desire to satisfy the dark side of his human nature and the destruction that feeding such insatiable appetites would cause across the world.

Even at the local level we often fail to acknowledge or even understand evil, as witnessed by the extreme imbalance between education spending and the dollars allocated for our police forces. There aren’t many in the field of public service who are paid less than the average street cop.

Even if man reaches the year 3000, he will still be born with the same sinful, dark, lustful desires. And the answer for the disease lies not in a library, lab, or university, but by recognizing the weaknesses of human nature and the answers that are found Above.

On this Veteran’s Day Weekend, I would like to pause for more than the recognition of a government holiday and the retail demarcation as the official “pre-Thanksgiving” shopping season.

I would truthfully and sincerely like to thank all who have ever served our nation and the bold experiment we call democracy.

In a post-election analysis, I offered in the early hours of November 8th several hundred words touching on who or what I believed to be the winners and losers of the Nov. 7th elections.

One “progressive” blogger pulled out this line I had written:

“Those who have shed blood and lost limbs in the effort to build a firewall against radical Islam and its terrorist progeny will now face the diminishment of their sacrifice.”

He then offered a link to a handyman. I asked what it meant. He responded that I was politically “unhinged.”

It wasn’t the obvious I was looking for in his answer. It was why he chose those few words, out of the hundreds I wrote, where I had praised our military and feared for their respect.

I told readers I would offer my take on his comments, and so I will.

The accusation by Mr. Progressive that I was politically “unhinged” in reference to our military, is indicative of a mindset–a paradigm–for many on the left in this country.

The war in Iraq never should have been a political football, and I blame many on both the right and left for allowing the lives, the sacrifice, the physical and emotional efforts of our soldiers to be used in a tug of war for power’s sake.

A clear majority of both Democrats and Republicans approved and funded the mission in the war, just as a majority of Democrats and Republicans funded military missions throughout our history.

I can honestly say that though I find President Clinton to be a despicable moral charlatan, I never spoke or wrote one word against what he and our Congress believed to be necessary military missions throughout the world. History reveals that not only did President Clinton keep increasing the scope of the mission in places like Somalia, but he did so while simultaneously whittling away the resources and funding for the very same military of which he had increased expectation.

But George W. Bush, nor the Republican Party for that matter, did not campaign against the Democrats and Al Gore by condemning the fact that the Clinton administration had deployed more troops than any other President in the modern era. In his book Reckless Disregard, Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson noted during the Bush/Kerry match-up, that “Clinton had dispatched the military overseas forty-four times during his eight years. Our military had been deployed outside our borders only eight times in the previous forty-five years.”

And despite these numbers, there were no cries for an “internal party reckoning” from those on the left who insist today in their political battle against Republicans, that they are patriots for peace.
It is not the FDR or Kennedy Democrats who have used our American soldier as a battering ram for personal gain. It is an alliance of leftists–academic elitists and Ivy League millionaires–who sell no message of legacy, but rather, offer up a smorgasbord of narcissistic self-indulgence for the moment. Free love and money. Party today, enjoy the fruits for yourself—get what you can–and don’t worry what tomorrow looks like.

It is a fortunate blessing for our nation that the winds of the Holy Spirit have been mightier in this nation than those spirits of late Rome. And while no man is certainly perfect, I’m thankful that leaders like FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan did not view our nation as an assembly of sheep to be fattened, but as a distinct body of individuals capable of not only incredible accomplishments for ourselves, but for all mankind.

It is ironic that the particular blogger of whom I speak and the many in his ranks refer to themselves as “progressive”, for there is nothing “progressive” about the failure to understand the face of surrender and its ramifications for our soldiers and for the future.

There is nothing “progressive” about viewing the American military as a pawn in the chessboard of Congress.

Looking back, Democrat Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson said: “I do not want to see the Democratic Party become a party which gives aid and comfort to people who applaud Vietcong victories or wave Vietcong flags. Our party has room for hawks and doves but not for mockingbirds who chirp gleefully at those who are shooting at American boys.”

Jackson also warned in July 1979 “that it is both wrong and foolhardy for any democratic state to consider international terrorism to be ‘someone else’s’ problem…. Liberal democracies must acknowledge that international terrorism is a ‘collective problem.’”

The American soldier symbolizes everything I aspire to: volunteerism, sacrifice, honor, duty, and courage.

On this Veteran’s Day weekend, I offer my fullest and most sincere thanks. May God Bless the soldiers of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

In the race for the U.S. Senate, Harold Ford Jr. campaigned against Bob Corker on a platform of change.  He was referring to the politics in Washington, but I am hopeful his campaign marked a change in the Democrat Party.

I’ve regularly noted in this column the hostility against religion, specifically Christianity, by many in the Democrat Party.  Votes in Congress on such things as keeping the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, have fallen along party lines with a majority of Republicans vote for and a majority of Democrats voting against.

Maybe it was just election year rhetoric, but Ford repeatedly referenced higher powers and embraced prayer.  He spoke at rallies and  on interviews such as WATE anchorman Gene Patterson’s show, about loving Jesus.  “I can’t help it,” he said, “I love Jesus.”

He campaigned for the marriage amendment, announcing he was going to vote “yes” on the amendment.  He was against “gay marriage,” he said on a local talk show.

My point is not to question the truthfulness or sincerity of his statements, but to say that as a rising star in Democrat politics, Ford’s alienation of the hyper-reactive “separation of church and state” crowd may mark a new turn in a good direction for a Party that has seemed bent on tearing down the foundations of society, namely the Godly principles that govern a society in a way that no legal document ever could.  As a candidate who has drawn national attention, his near victory and the good will he established in a southern state may rock a party that is embraced by liberal groups like the ACLU, Communist Party USA, and the American Atheists’ Godless Americans PAC.

Republicans lost seats across the nation.  And though the liberal media will rally with chants of “conservatism rejected”, the closeness of most of those races, such as the less than a single percentage point that separated Republican George Allen and Democrat James Webb in the Virginia race, shows quite the opposite.  Most Democrat winners, such as Republican J.D. Hayworth’s  opponent in Arizona, mirrored the conservatism of the Republican candidate.  Republicans lost as a matter of trust, not principle.

In the weekend before the election, the Wall Street Journal highlighted a slew of Democrat candidates across the nation who were considered “conservative” and right-leaning on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

Did they mean what they were saying?  We’ll see when the begin casting votes in Congress.  If they are sincere, will they be able to make a difference in a national party controlled by ultra-liberal special interests groups like NOW, George Soros, and the abortion crowd?  I don’t know.

If he’s sincere, I’m encouraged by Democrat politicians like Harold Ford Jr.  In the history of our two party system, both parties have bowed to offer thanks to a mighty God–a tradition beginning with our founding fathers and carried through FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan.  As the torch was passed to George W. Bush however, howls of protest began to loudly echo throughout the nation that we in fact, were not a  Godly nation…that prayer had no place in the halls of government.

If Democrats like  Harold Ford Jr. and Congressman Lincoln Davis can bring other Democrats around to their way of speaking, the two parties can get back to a place where we can argue about Social Security, welfare, immigration, taxes, and foreign policy.  Otherwise,  the modern day Democrat Party will hold its place as a party recognized for the liberalization of our culture and the rejection of our Godly heritage.

It’s pretty simple. If you believe marriage is between one man and one woman, then you need to vote “Yes” on Amendment #1. And if you believe the marriage vote isn’t really that important, then just look at this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling. For the second time, black robes have ignored the will of the people and forced a legislative body to act on same sex unions.

Despite efforts to change the meaning of what marriage really is, there is no denying that at the very core of the institution is children. The fullness of marriage is not achieved with the swapping of rings and the symbolic kiss, but rather when the union results in the bearing of a child. No matter how scientific and modern we become, producing children still requires the the unique union of man and woman.

While marriage is for many like myself, a religious institution, it also has been an institution recognized by governments in nations throughout the world…and time. Modern culture encourages man to worship at the feet of self-indulgence–to live on an island of momentary pleasures and desires with no connection to a past or a present. While education bureaucracies and politicians sell grand ideas with the familiar chant of “it’s for the children,” a conflicting message steadily drones on that children are only accessories to a happy life…not the goal of one.

Societies have risen and they have fallen. Successful societies encourage the bearing of children and the responsibility to care for them. Governments can gear laws towards encouraging and rewarding behaviors and institutions, like marriage, that are good for society–that perpetuate the very existence of society.

There is no denying the facts that children do best when raised with a mother and a father. There is no denying that the future of a society–its population, its economy, its health care, its very existence–depends upon the bearing of children to operate that society.

When we try to fool ourselves with the idea that each of us operates in a vacuum–in a bubble so to speak–with no effect on our community or a nation as a whole, we’re in for a rude awakening.

We cannot change the value of marriage from a sacred union formed as a commitment to each other and the children that are born, to one that values marriage as an event to celebrate a feeling or emotion. Marriage is not just about “love.”

My opinions aren’t formed lightly or as guesswork. You can cast your eyes around the globe, as well as through the pages of history, and see for yourself the fruits of such folly. Many of the progressive Scandinavian countries that have tried to alter the very foundations of society are now seeing the fruits of their architecture. Women are not bearing children there and nor in most European countries. With birthrates ranging from 1.4 children per woman in Italy to less than 2 per woman throughout Europe, the question of marriage will soon no longer be seen as the great moral argument of our time…but rather, a necessity to produce workers to pay taxes and care for the aged.

If marriage is redefined as pleasure and emotion, then who is going to care for us in our old age? It won’t take long to witness the suffering that will be associated with such drastic restructuring of families. Even in our own day we don’t have to look very far to see the crimes committed by young men, who for the most part, have been reared in fatherless homes.

I don’t believe that marriages must produce a child to be a marriage–but its ability to is its very essence. I don’t believe that a child cannot be successfully reared without both a mother and a father. But I think as a society, we have to be realistic and encouraging when we look towards our future and what is best. We don’t build schools on shifting sands or roads through swamps. And likewise, we can’t perpetuate a society by changing the definitions of a family and the benefits it offers our nation as a whole.
If proponents of such word games can find where such changes have increased marriage and the bearing of children, then I will stand corrected. But no such proof exists. Vote “yes” on amendment 1.

Published 10/15/2006

I was speaking with a friend of mine who works in the heart of the political action in Nashville.

His job is non-partisan in nature, but it has taken him to several states. Of all the states he has worked, he says Tennessee is the most corrupt he’s ever worked in.

It was a stinging statement for the ears of a born and raised Tennessee girl like me. But I must admit, it’s a comment I’ve heard before.

As a youngster, the mix of politics and the Butcher banking scandal was the news of the day. Governor Ray Blanton selling pardons and a statewide sting that sent many Sheriffs to jail, including our own local sheriff, are distant, but strong memories.

I was working at the State Capitol when Rep.Ted Ray Miller killed himself on the heels of the Rocky Top investigation.

The on-going investigation and conviction of Governor Sundquist’s associates for their role in no-bid contracts has yet to be resolved. And Operation Tennessee Waltz, credited with the indictment of several powerful officials like Senators Ford and Crutchfield, has stirred mighty political winds throughout the state.

How does our wonderful state known for its volunteerism get to a place where people start muttering, “Tennessee and Arkansas—you won’t find politicians any more crooked anywhere.”

Is it the people of Tennessee? I find it hard to believe in a state referred to as the “buckle” of the Bible belt…in a state where so many people profess a belief in right and wrong.

Is it our laws? In part, yes. They could be stronger and better. They could require more transparency and accountability of our elected officials.

Is it our media? Yes, the media gets a lion’s share of the blame. I know there are no written rules anywhere requiring media outlets to investigate elected officials, but I do know that if you asked most people on the street, they would admit they believe media is the “watchdog” for the people.

There are no shortages of opinion by editorial pages when crimes hit the fan. Editorial pages were filled when the feds plugged in the microphones at press conferences announcing indictments in the Tennessee Watltz sting.

But where are the “roving” reporters of old who break open these type of scandals or weaknesses in government before a contingency of federal agents has to set up shop?

I believe they’re still out there. But many of them are kept under the heels of publishers, editors and station managers who have found life easier, richer, and less stressful by climbing into bed with politicians instead of standing on opposite sides.

Publishers like Bruce Hartman of the Knoxville News Sentinel prefer to rub elbows with elected officials rather than hold them accountable. Hartman, who is credited in the respected magazine Tennessse Business for helping Bredesen “achieve victory” in ’02 can hardly be credited with journalistic integrity when reports of so many scandals involving the Bredesen administration have ever seen the light of day in East Tennessee.

For instance, bank records obtained by WKRN in Nashville show that one of Bredesen’s cabinet members, Matt Kisber, obtained over $1.2 million dollars in “loans” from a lobbyist while he was a legislator. There are no records showing that the loans have ever been repaid. Is this a story that will ever make it to East Tennessee?

It’s not likely.

The press is a powerful estate. But opinion should be secondary to investigative efforts. Asking questions, looking at records and inspecting the books should all be regular habits for members of the media. It’s a hard and sometimes thankless job, but it’s one that helps stem the tide of corruption that gives our state a bad name.

Published September 17, 2006

Men will perish. But the words they speak and the prose they pen can live forever.

The choices they make and the courage they exhibit can ring throughout history. I salute those who fought and those who died on the battlefields of time in the name of freedom. On this 5th anniversary of 9/11, I salute the men and women who serve today in the fight against radical Islam and its forces of terror.

I honor those whose love for human freedom is displayed courageously through the blood, sweat, and tears of our World Wars.

There are moments when we should look back and understand that time will offer men clarity and understanding not seen in the breath and heat of a moment.

As time rewards the brave men and women who took a stand against Germany and Japan, I believe time will reward the brave men and women who are taking a stand against terrorism.

Today, I ask the gentle reader to look back in time at portions of a radio speech delivered by Franklin D. Roosevelt. I have copied it from the pages of a May 28, 1941 Knoxville Journal.

From FDR: “SOME EYES SHUT”

“There is, of course, a small group of sincere, patriotic men and women whose real passion for peace has shut their eyes to the ugly realities of international banditry and to the need to resist it at all costs.

I am sure they are embarrassed by the sinister support they are receiving from the enemies of democracy in our midst—the Bundists, and Fascists, and Communists, and every group devote[d] to bigotry and racial and religious intolerance. It is no mere coincidence that all the arguments put forward by these enemies of democracy—all their attempts to confuse and divide our people and destroy public confidence in our government—all their defeatist forebodings that Britain and democracy are already beaten—all their selfish promises that we can “do business” with Hitler—all of these are but echoes of the words that have been poured out from the Axis’ bureaus of propaganda. Those same words have been used before in other countries—to scare them, to divide them, to soften them up. Invariably, those same words have formed the advance guard of physical attack.

Your government has the right to expect of all citizens that they take loyal part in the common work of our common defense—take loyal part from this moment forward.

I have recently set up the machinery for civilian defense. It will rapidly organize, locality by locality. It will depend on the organized effort of men and women everywhere. All will have responsibilities to fulfill.”

“WORLD IS DIVIDED”

“Today the whole world is divided between human slavery and human freedom—between pagan brutality and the Christian ideal.

We choose human freedom—which is the Christian ideal.

No one of us can waver for a moment in his courage or his faith.

We will not accept a Hitler dominated world. And we will not accept a world, like the postwar world of the 1920’s, in which the seeds of Hitlerism can again be planted and allowed to grow.

We will accept only a world consecrated to freedom of speech and expression—freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—freedom from want—and freedom from terrorism.

Is such a world impossible of attainment?

Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, the Emancipation Proclamation and every other milestone in human progress—all were ideals which seemed impossible of attainment—yet they were attained.

As a military force, we were weak when we established our independence, but we successfully stood off tyrants, powerful in their day, who are now lost in the dust of history.”

Frankly Speaking

Publish Date: September 3, 2006

Last week, a Polish footballer by the name of Artur Boruc blessed himself during a football game and was accused of “breaching the peace.” Subsequent to official complaints over his religious gesture, an investigation by Strathclyde Police was met with dismay, denunciation, and disbelief by Catholic Church officials.

Several days ago, Omeed Aziz Popal ran over at least fourteen people in San Francisco, killing one and seriously injuring the rest. Popal, an Afghani Muslim, was quoted by family members as wanting to return to Afghanistan. An eyewitness account from KTVU in California says Popal claimed to be a terrorist. News accounts however, describe Popal as merely a “troubled” man and possibly having “emotional” problems. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom referenced the murderous assaults not as terrorism or attempted murder, but as “road rage.”

It needs to be noted that Popal wasn’t just hitting people who happened to be in his path. Popal drove from his Muslim community to a non-Muslim one. First hand accounts from victims and targets tell how Popal would circle back around to try and hit victims again.

You can’t help but look at these two separate stories and wonder if political correctness has gone up and over the edge into the realm of just plain nuts.

We look at a Christian religious gesture on the soccer field as dangerous. Yet we look at a Muslim man targeting people to run over as just “emotionally unstable,” without ever mentioning the possibility of his religious motives.

The only explanation I can come up with is best exemplified by the story of Narcissus from Greek mythology. When the young and handsome Narcissus caught a glimpse of his own reflection in the water, he was so taken with himself, that he was unable to break his gaze.

He died never looking beyond himself.

Maybe there is a warning there for us.

While politics always boils down to self-interest at some point or another, an obsession with self soon becomes a threat to the whole.

Whether it harkens back to Dr. Sigmund Freud and an American preoccupation with psychology and self-help, I do not know. But let’s face it. People of the modern age are just plain obsessed with self. Ahhhh, the God of Me.

And when you’re obsessed with self, like Narcissus was with his own reflection, you are cut off from reality. Realities like the fact that maybe Omeed Aziz Popal wasn’t just upset. Maybe he was on a killing spree. A jihad. An act of martyrdom against infidels.

Realities like the possibility that Popal may not operate on the same assumption or have the same wants and needs as we do.

Realities like a personal blessing during a soccer match is a better role model for a body of people than MTV or a half-naked man running around with body glitter and butterfly wings pasted on his back.

Our leaders, our media, our university elite, are so obsessed with self, with political correctness, with transferring their own ideas and emotions onto others, that they have removed themselves from reality.

We need to recognize that some people might actually be seeking to do us harm. Muslim terrorists want to kill us not for property or emotional turmoil, but because they believe we should convert or die. That’s a dose of reality. Reality is that a society that promotes moral and decent behaviors will not only perpetuate the existence of that society, but will allow it to flourish.

While rugged individualism has truly been an American trait, the slide towards self-obsession and narcissism will not make our nation stronger. Instead, it threatens to break down the fabric of our country from within.

Frankly Speaking Published on August 20, 2006

When we look back over the history of America, we can see a pattern of alliances and commitment to aid, as well as force, as we have sought through time to protect our seaboard nation from outside harm. We have invested time and resources into outposts and a presence in far away lands.

But while Presidents like Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan sought to make the right moves in a foreign policy chess match, the survival of America has always depended in part on the success and goodness of her people within.

We have maintained our strength outside of our borders because Americans have properly and self-reliantly governed themselves within our borders.

As new information continues to develop in the case of little Jon Benet Ramsey, we are again reminded that threats to our nation aren’t always packaged as explosives and can’t always be stopped at the border.

For whatever reason, people who can’t control their sexual urges are indeed a threat to our nation. Proponents of liberty–good ole‚ American freedom–have argued that the freedoms our forefathers shed blood for, freedoms like the right to assembly, religion, and speech, also includes any number of freedoms with your clothes off.

Unfortunately, encouraging such limitless sexual liberty has left in its wake a multitude of men and women who aren’t really free at all–but rather find themselves slaves to their physical desires.

I have always argued on these pages that our success as a nation depends on the decency and common sense of people across America. I’ve oft repeated that you’ll never be able to pass enough laws or deputize enough officers to control a darkening and hardening heart of man.

But Jon Benet’s case, and the growing number of other cases involving child molesters, predators, acts of public indecency, liaisons in our parks, demands nothing less than outcry from our society.

It’s time to get up from our kitchen table discussions and do something about it.

Last year, my good friend State Representative Stacey Campfield (R-Knox) introduced Jessica’s Law. Jessica’s law requires minimum mandatory sentencing for child molesters.

Shamefully, the bill got no traction. If re-elected in November, he promises to make the passage of this bill his top priority. We need other legislators to join his effort.

Today I issue a challenge to our local police chiefs and sheriff. I challenge you to provide a website as well as newspaper coverage with the names and pictures of anyone arrested or charged with public indecency, lewdness, prostitution and other such similar acts that threaten to destroy the fabric of our community. It’s being done in Nashville and it can be done here.

I challenge you the reader, to call your commissioners and council members or your local media and urge them to fight for decency and safety and in our county.

And if you are a parent or a guardian who believes your child may be in harms way within the school system, I challenge you to not only protect your own child, but to do what’s necessary to protect the harm of other children.

I am willing to do what’s necessary to clean up Anderson County. I may not be able to do anything about Knox or Campbell, but I can sure do something here at home.

I not only ask, but I challenge you to call me personally if you believe you are in need of help, if you believe there is a cover-up, or you want something done. I don’t hold an office or have special powers, only the knowledge of how to get something done and a willingness to do it. We’ve got to start somewhere.

Published July 22, 2006

When I was a senior at Anderson County High School, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in a program where students were chosen to spend a day in government.  I was paired with then Election Administrator Cary Grieve and the ladies in the office put me right to work.  Mr. Grieve encouraged me to register young people to vote, so I set up a table at the high school and I’ve pretty much worked on or around campaigns ever since.

However, it wasn’t until I started closely paying attention to President Reagan that I felt the importance of not just being involved in the political process, but in trying to elect men and women who serve as a shining examples of what our nation can be.

In the last twenty years, I have met a lot of wonderful candidates.  And in that time, there have been some that I had so much faith in, that I stepped out of my normal routine to help in any way I can.

Ed Bryant, a former Congressman and U.S. Attorney from West Tennessee, is one of those men.  I’ve taken a leave of absence from my official position in our local party to work in any way I can to tell people about the friend I honor, Mr. Ed Bryant.

Ed Bryant has a long list of endorsements from conservative groups we trust—such as Tennessee Right to Life and the Republican National Coalition for Life. The Coalition was founded by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.

Illegal immigration is a serious issue for our nation as well, and only Ed Bryant has received the endorsement from the leading national advocacy organization for tougher immigration policies, the American Council for Immigration Reform.  They have awarded Mr. Bryant and “A” rating and have high praises for the work he did while in Congress.  Ed also has the endorsement of TEAM America PAC, a group founded by leading immigration reformer U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Chairman of Team America Bay Buchanan says of Bryant “Ed Bryant is the toughest guy against illegal immigration in this race.”

“Not only is his record solid, Bryant is an outspoken advocate for border security and enforcement of our laws. His plan to solve the immigration crisis is right on—he calls for both a secure border and mandatory verification of the legal status of employees by their employers.”

I could go on with others who have endorsed Mr. Bryant, like rock solid conservatives in the U.S. Senate such as Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), and tax cutting hero and former Majority Leader Dick Armey, but today, I want to emphasize my personal endorsement of Ed.

As many of my regular readers know, one of my own personal concerns regards the cultural issues of our day.  I believe as a nation that a clear majority of us believes in the bedrock principles that bind us together—principles like a faith in the importance of family, a belief in God, a belief in right and wrong, and a trust in the Golden Rule.

Many of those important principles and traditions have been under attack by minority opinions in such places as our federal courts.

It is because I believe so deeply that our nation is strong because we are Godly nation that today, I humbly ask you to vote for my friend Ed Bryant.  He is a man of honor, integrity, and faith who is unmatched in the race for the U.S. Senate.

Published: 7/9/2006

Not to be sacrilegious, but I’ve often joked that the most effective way to convert people to Christ would be to put every man and woman in town on a ballot.  I say that because come election time, just about every candidate for public office is suddenly a Christian and just as quickly a conservative.  Of course, the conversions wouldn’t be genuine, because, well…you know: politicians tend to lie.

Please understand.  I’m not mocking my Lord, nor would I disrespect Him.  But I am drawing attention to the fact that there is one rule you need to follow closely during election season.  It applies to all races for public office— local as well as state and national.  Ready?  Here it is: Never accept as the complete truth what a politician says during election year.

Does this mean never trust a politician?  No, you can trust.  But as my favorite President Ronald Reagan used to say “trust, but verify.”  And election years are the time when you must really work a little harder to verify.

Take for example our current race for the United States Senate.  Three Republicans, Ed Bryant, Bob Corker, and Van Hilleary are vying for the seat as well as Democrat Harold Ford, Jr.  All four candidates are scrambling over the top of each other to be conservative.  The liberal Harold Ford Jr. for example, is on radio and TV airwaves trying to sell a message of conservatism on such issues as abortion, immigration, and the 2nd amendment.

Is it just me calling Ford a liberal?  No.  Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s 2000 campaign manager said the same thing about Ford this fall when interviewed on NPR’s “News and Notes with Ed Gordon.”

Gordon: “I think of someone like Harold Ford or Artur Davis, who are clearly more moderate than their predecessors.”

Ms. Brazile: “They sound moderate, but if you look at their voting record, clearly they are within the mainstream or even the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, although I would consider them on paper to be moderate Democrats because that’s the way they have tried to define themselves.”  (Brazile, 10/5/05)

On the radio today, I heard Harold Ford Jr. saying that we needed to support our troops and find common ground with the President.  But it was about this time last year that Junior called our men and women in uniform “oil cops.”  (Carroll County News-Leader 7/13/05)

Ford Jr. has a liberal voting record, as well as rhetoric.  But now he’s no longer Mr. Liberal, or even Mr. Moderate.  No, Ford Jr. is now Mr. Conservative.   What’s changed?

Election year, that’s what has changed.

And let’s take Bob Corker’s newest ads where the words “pro-life” pop up on the screen.  I heard Corker selling this same message when I attended the first televised debate in Knoxville last week.   Is Corker really pro-life?  Well, he says he is.  But his record tells a different story, which may account for why Tennessee Right to Life has endorsed Ed Bryant as well as giving a good rating to Van Hilleary.  But as for Bob Corker, well, TRL President Brian Harris has said that if Mr. Corker wins the primary, “we [Tennessee Right to Life] will not support him.  We will not support his bid for election.”

You’re going to see and hear a lot of ads and hear candidates say things during this election season that they’ve probably never ever said before, nor will ever say again.

But there is help.  There are numerous sources and independent groups out there ready to help you sort through the facts. If a candidate says they are for low taxes, look to see how they voted or governed before.  Look and see how they lived, worked, volunteered, wrote, and spoke BEFORE they ran for office.

If you do that, you should get a good feel for what is genuine and what is not.

Published: 6/25/06

Do you sometimes think that no one is listening? Do you believe that one person can’t possibly make a difference?

Think again.

Last Thursday, the President signed the Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act, increasing broadcast indecency fines from $32,500 to $325,000.

Kevin Martin, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), welcomed the new fining authority and congratulated Congress for taking steps towards protecting children from inappropriate material on TV and radio.

Across the nation, many families have felt powerless against the coarse material being pumped into our living rooms.  For many, the choice was to turn off the TV altogether.  Others have just suffered through, trying to enjoy good family time and enduring moments of indecency.

But Congress and the FCC have heard your complaints and took bold steps to attack the problem.  Your voice was heard.

In the race for the U.S. Senate, FCC rules became the subject of another controversy involving the radio advertising of Republican candidate Bob Corker.

Corker ran ads on a Christian Radio Network called the Bott Radio Network.  In those ads, Corker claims to be pro-life.  Some pro-life listeners called the radio station and asked why Corker, who has a pro-choice history and record on abortion, was being allowed to play ads on the station.

Executive Vice-President of the Bott Radio Network, Rich Bott, investigated the caller complaints.  Following his research, Mr. Bott then went on to record a disclaimer for his station addressing Mr. Corker’s record.

Mr. Bott explains in his recorded disclaimer why WCRV is airing the commercials.  He tells listeners that the FCC requires him to run the ads of any bona fide candidate for federal office, but then he says that the FCC also allows him to editorialize, or as he puts it in the disclaimer, he is allowed to tell the “rest of the story.”

The meat of his disclaimer goes like this: Did you know that Tennessee Right to Life opposes Bob Corker based on his statements and actions regarding abortion? As Commissioner of Finance under Don Sundquist, Bob Corker vehemently opposed budgetary language that would have strictly limited the use of state tax dollars for abortion. In 1994 he gave pro-choice answers in his candidate survey and his 2006 candidate survey submitted to National Right to Life is not 100% pro-life.  Even one of the state’s most outspoken abortionists hosted a fundraising event for Corker.
When word leaked of the disclaimer, the Corker campaign ceased running ads on the network and attacked Mr. Bott.  A controversy ensued regarding Mr. Bott’s actions and whether he is in fact, entitled to such an opinion.

Bott himself answered the critics on my web site saying in part, that the editorials were aired separately and that Corker had been invited to come on and express himself. Bott summed up by saying “I still think it is important to know that while the Corker campaign ads claim that he is ‘pro-life’ Tennessee Right to Life is opposing him because of his past statements and actions concerning abortion. That is an interesting contradiction.”

The listeners in Memphis who called to complain made a difference.  They raised the attention of Mr. Bott who then went on to investigate and act.  He didn’t allow the campaign rhetoric of one candidate to go unanswered– he gave listeners information.  He placed principle over the money Bob Corker was shoveling his way.

The new FCC fines and the Bott ads aren’t as big of stories as the death of Al Zarqawi—but in the whole scheme of things they do make a difference for all time.  You are just as capable of making such a difference—of making the world a more honest and decent place.  Never feel defeated.

Published May 27/28th

America has always been the land of the free.

But are you really free when you can’t leave a seven-dollar plastic chair on your front porch without fear of it being stolen? Are you free when your 6 year-old son’s trip to the bathroom may involve far greater dangers than his failure to wash his hands?

There is a delicate balance to freedom, more specifically that at some point, one man’s freedoms begin to intrude on the freedoms of another.

Usually harming a man’s person or property is the point at which government and law enforcement decides the freedoms of one man have intruded upon the freedoms of another.

But what about other freedoms we may have lost—such as the freedom to trust? What about losing the ability for your children to become a part of a community, to run around the neighborhood or bike around town, without fear?

As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But anymore, modern society finds itself in the pound of cure mindset.

In our personal health, we often look to a pill or a doctor to cure what we could prevent.

Similarly, in the realm of a free society, we often look to the government as the cure for what ails society instead of preventing the problems in the first place. We expect no limits to our personal freedoms and likewise, we expect someone else to clean up the mess such over-emphasis on individualism leaves behind. We think arresting a child molester or locking up a rapist will cure the victim.

I’m not saying punishment isn’t necessary. It is needed and needed more swiftly and strongly than it currently is. But my point here is, wouldn’t it be better if we were a body of people who were less likely to commit the crime in the first place?

For some reason, we’re told we’re making progress as society coarsens. Many swell with pride at the liberties taken with profanity, violence, and loveless sex on the TV screen. “How free! How very first amendment!” many shout. As if the words and actions of actors, politicians, and leaders have no effect on a society at large.

Discussions that center on preventing what is ailing society are far and few between. Debates center on more jails, more therapists, more money, more schools, more scholarships, more assistance, more hotlines, more pills, more…more…more.

But what about discussions about such preventative measures as a stable family…such as a mom and a dad?

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a constitutional amendment to protect marriage by sending the measure to the full Senate in a 10-8 party line vote. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist has scheduled floor debate on the amendment beginning June 5, with a vote expected June 6 or 7.

But have you really heard much about it? Have you seen or heard any big leaders or politicians out on the news programs or radio circuit discussing the issue?

You haven’t, and you probably won’t. It seems we’d rather talk about cures than prevention.

When states all across the nation are overwhelmingly passing amendments to their state constitutions to define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, you would think there would be more debate.

In my opinion, upholding the time-honored sanctity of marriage is one way to promote the perpetuation of a prosperous and healthy society—a society of fewer victims. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote yes on the federal marriage amendment. Senator Lamar Alexander’s Knoxville office: 545-4253.
Senator Bill Frist’s Knoxville office 637-4180.

Published May 14, 2006

Just this week, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 1437 that according to Scripps Howard News Service,  “attempts to create bias-free social science curriculum by requiring schools to recognize the contributions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.”

The bill, which is expected to pass the State Assembly, would also prevent textbooks, teaching materials, instruction, or “school sponsored activities” from reflecting adversely on anyone based on sexual orientation or “actual” or “perceived” gender.

Numerous California pro-family groups have cited legal analysts who say that this could mean an end to such gender specific words as “mom” and “dad.”

In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reports of a controversy where second-graders were read a story entitled “King & King” about two homosexual princes who get married.  At Joseph Estabrook Elementary, the teacher, with the backing of Lexington’s superintendent of schools, stated that parents don’t have to be informed when their children are introduced to such themes because in Massachusetts, “same-sex marriage is legal.”

Or as the Superintendent Paul Ash so flatly stated, “”We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed.”

As we honor the very special mothers in our lives this weekend, let us also take a moment to remember that there are those that see even the word “mother,” as some kind of bigoted, social constraint.

I bring you these stories this weekend, so that you may see that this movement isn’t some fringe, radical effort to redefine or break down families, but that is a movement gaining speed in courts, schools and in legislative halls.

The publicly stated goals of such efforts are to embrace diversity, and understand individualism.  But I believe the goals are to impress upon our children that each child is an island—that he is his own master.  I believe the goals are to teach kids that his sexuality has no limits or constraints; that sexual gratification in whatever form or fashion is the highest priority of existence; that self is the highest ideal.

Just this week in Missouri, twelve boys ages 6, 7, and 8 have been accused of sexually assaulting a little girl on the playground at recess.  Already suspended, the boys could face misdemeanor charges of first-degree sexual misconduct and third-degree assault.  But I have to ask just what have these boys seen or been exposed to, and who is responsible for their exposure.  At their ages, they’re not acting based on what they know, they’re acting on what they’ve seen.

When the grown-ups keep introducing adult themes, bombarding kids with sexual imagery, and using “non-specific gender terms,” is it really any wonder that incidents like the one in Missouri, really happen?

I believe those who seek to reconstruct not just the family, but the history of mankind, are terrorists of a sort.

No, they’re not terrorists with bombs, knives, or guns.  But their ideas act as a poison on the future of our nation—a nation where the love and charity taught within a family yields the fruit of love and charity throughout the world.

While the idea that “self” is the most important and that personal gratification is the highest ideal may lend itself to one big party for a while, it is a party that simply can’t go on.  As a nation, we will either have to turn back to an embrace of the family, or look forward to the decline of society.  You have a big part in determining the course.

Published April 30, 2006

If you knew what the future held, would you continue on the same track, or would you do something to change it?

The passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 were faced with that very same question. On September 11, 2001, every day folks like you and me boarded a plane in Newark, New Jersey. Their take-off was delayed, but they finally got off the ground. Once in the air, crew and passengers were alerted through cell phones that hijacked planes had been used to destroy the World Trade Center.

This weekend, Universal Pictures is releasing United 93, a film by director Paul Greengrass. Greengrass has directed big name films like Bloody Sunday and The Bourne Supremacy.

Greengrass did his homework for this film about the 40 passengers aboard Flight 93. He is reported to have interviewed over 100 family members of the passengers and he hired civilian and military controllers to play themselves in the movie.

While many critics question if America is ready for this film, CNN reports that Richard Roeper said on “Ebert & Roeper”: “This is the best movie so far this year.”

While United Airlines Flight 93 was one of the four planes hijacked on September 11, 2001, it was the only plane that did not reach its target.

United 93 is a film about the passengers and crew, like LeRoy Wilton Homer Jr, and Todd Beamer, who attempted to subdue the hijackers. United 93 is a film about the passengers, crew, and hijackers who crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Kirk Honeycutt of Hollywood Reporter reports United 93 writer-director Greengrass as saying “They were the first people to inhabit the post-9/11 world.”

In other words, these passengers were the first to react to terrorism once they realized that there plane would be used as a weapon.

I’ll be seeing United 93 this weekend. And not only will I be seeing it to learn more about the passengers aboard that flight, but I want to see it as a reminder of the debate we’re still having in America.

On a much larger scale, we look now at President Bush who isn’t exactly enjoying high approval ratings. He is constantly being raked over the coals for his war on terrorism by media and political opponents. Not many fellow party members seem to be rushing to the defense of the President’s decision either.

Look at Tennessee’s own Congressmen and Senators. Do you hear much from them?

I bring this up because it’s important to know in the world of politics, that high approval numbers are usually achieved by giving in or switching tracks.

But President Bush is staying the course. Like so many of us, he witnessed 9/11 and he calculated what the future holds for our America as she lives under the threat of terrorism.

If you are our President, do you stay in your seat and see where the ride will take you? Or do you storm the cockpit?

This isn’t just a question to ask if you are an elected leader or a military officer. It’s a question to ask as a citizen—as an American.

I’m thankful for those brave leaders on United Flight 93. And I say “leaders” because they didn’t stop to take a vote. They didn’t order coffee and host a focus group. They saw a threat and they took action.

It’s a quality not just cherished for our nation’s leaders, but for our local officials, teachers, volunteer firefighters, police, mothers and fathers. It’s a quality in all of you. You just have to use it.

Published on April 2, 2005

WBIR-Channel 10 in Knoxville reported this week that a jury found 39-year-old Jerry Lee Ratliff of Kingsport guilty of six counts of rape, six counts of incest and one count each of aggravated sexual battery and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor.  Not only did Ratliff rape his 10-year-old step-daughter, but he videotaped the acts.

On March 6, Royal Raymond Weller of Clarksville, Tennessee, was arrested for serving as a host to a file-sharing site where sick freaks could trade videos and pictures of children as young as 18 months-old being sexually abused.  To add to the tragedy and sickness of the actions of this child porn ring, some molestations were actually taking place “live on demand” over the internet.

Now turn your attention to the West Coast this past weekend where more than 25,000 young people gathered for a “reverse rebellion” where they listened to speeches and music as part of a celebration of their united stand against a culture that they claim glamorizes sex and violence.

You would think a city would be proud to serve as host to such a self-controlled and aware group of kids.  But not in San Francisco, where the city leaders known as the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the rally as an “act of provocation” that aimed to “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”

According to an article in Time magazine, Democratic State Assemblyman Mark Leno said he found participants in the rally known as BattleCry for a Generation, to be “obnoxious” and ”disgusting” and that “they should get out of San Francisco.”

For whatever the reason, for whatever the goal…we have been bombarded with a message that we can’t control our sexual-selves.  Many sex-ed classes that surpassed the biology of reproduction and human sexuality long ago, now teach kids the “how-to” of sex based on the presumption that teens aren’t much different than some stray dog.

When we raise children to believe that sexual urges can’t be controlled, we end up with adults with no self-control.  We end up with adults who aren’t “progressive” as Assemblyman Mark Leno may think they are, but rather are slaves to their physical urges.

While some adults may look approvingly or enviously at the novice youth satisfying his sexual urges with abandon, all adults must look upon deviants like Ratliff and Royal Raymond Weller and wonder why they couldn’t control themselves.

As it seems more and more scenarios like those of Ratliff and Weller emerge, various states are finding their legislatures in the business of wondering what to do about these deviants who prey upon our children.  In South Carolina, the State Senate just endorsed a proposal that would allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.

Louisiana already passed such legislation that went into effect in August of 1995.  Their legislation allows the offender to be “punished by death or life imprisonment” in the cases of victims under the age of twelve.

It’s a debate to be had in Tennessee—or at the very least, we must discuss what we can do about the danger child predators are to our society.  If it means mandatory sentencing, locking them up for life, or death, we have to deal with the problem.  But it’s going to take more than laws and punishment.  It’s going to take a neighborhood, a community, a society that will stand up and say that not all sex is good sex.

Published 3/19/2006

What does crack, crystal meth, and kissing babies have to do with each other?  Campaign season.  You’re probably going to see and hear about both.

Political signs and sprouting flowers let us know spring is upon us in Anderson County.  You may find yourself enjoying the daffodils, but annoyed at signs, mail pieces, or political ads.  But pay close attention to all of the campaign tools, for they are some of the few ways a candidate can tell you who he is and what he’s about.

I’m not usually the type to elevate the importance of one race over another.  I think they’re all important.

But this year, I think crime and punishment is the biggest issue we face in Anderson County.  Drugs like methamphetamines, crack, and prescription painkillers like OxyContin are starting to eat away at our safety, security, and well being in Anderson County.

The drugs these users ingest, snort, or shoot don’t just affect the addicts who take them, they disrupt the lives of the law-abiding.  Addicts rob our stores, threaten our clerks, assault our friends, family and neighbors, snatch purses and cause accidents, steal property from our front porches and cars, neglect their children, make up stories and bum cash, loiter in parking lots, destroy homes and rental property, steal Freon from air units, write bad checks, and sometimes even stab, shoot, or kill.

No one is immune from the effects of their bad choices. Like a disease, the effects of rampant drug use spread throughout our county and cities.  Oak Ridge seems to have the most pronounced problem.  An article appearing around this time last year in the Oak Ridge Observer reported that crimes against society in Oak Ridge were up 55.1 percent since 2001.  Crimes against property as well as violent crime–have risen nearly 21 percent since 2001.

When we talk about drugs we usually think of squad cars, blue lights and uniforms.  But it takes more than law enforcement.  It’s going to take a judicial system willing to first contain the problem, and secondly work on eliminating the problem.

It’s going to take a District Attorney’s office willing to pursue the prosecution and conviction of criminals who violate the law.  That’s why for the year 2006, I think the DA’s race is the most important one in our county.

For too long, our District Attorney’s office has functioned more as public defender than it has as a prosecutorial presence.  Don’t take my word for it.  Ask a police officer or look up any number of victims in Anderson County.

Jim Ramsey’s decision to step down from the District Attorney’s office is a good start towards a new approach to dealing with drugs.  But it’s only a start. We now must replace him with a District Attorney who is willing to actually prosecute criminals for breaking the law.
Pay close attention to the DA’s race.  And don’t be shy about.  Call the candidates.  Write them. Email them.  Invite them to your home or a gathering.  Grill them about how they plan to handle the criminals who break the law in Anderson County.

It’s time to take our county back, and finding out where the District Attorney candidates stand is a good place to start.

3/3/2006 Published

After interviewing nearly 23,000 people since 2001, researchers in Australia have concluded that money doesn’t actually buy happiness. The February AFP story reports “people in well-off Sydney are among the most miserable in the country, while those in some of the poorest areas are much more satisfied with their lives.” Researchers measured happiness by scoring a person’s satisfaction with their standard of living, health, relationships, life achievement, safety, community connection and future security.

I don’t think it’s a message that bureaucrats in government offices are really going to get, for the new wave of prevailing economic development seems to be that more money, specifically more tax money pouring into the Treasury, equals a better life for all.

The hot topic in the Tennessee Legislature this year is the power of eminent domain; in other words, the government confiscation of your property for public use. Members of our Tennessee House and Senate have presented nearly 60 bills dealing with eminent domain. Most of those bills have now been bundled and sent off to a study committee for review, with the exception of one being brought directly to the floor by Rep. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) this Monday. His bill seeks to place a 120-day immediate moratorium on confiscation of property until a consensus bill is hammered out in committee. The moratorium would also halt a rush of property seizures by local governments.

The topic shot to the forefront ever since the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo vs. City of New London case. States all over the country have rushed to make their stands against what generally appears to be a blow to individual property rights.

While there have always been laws and rules regarding the use of your property, eminent domain—or the taking of property—has been reserved for actual public “use”, that is schools, roads, utility poles, etc. Now it seems that taking your property is the hip thing to do if a bureaucrat thinks he’s got a better idea for your land and his idea will bring in more tax revenue.

We’ve always taught our children that money isn’t the measure of a man. Why is it all of a sudden that tax money is the measure of a man’s property?

If a farmer wants to hold to his property and pass it on to his children, that should be within his rights. And a little old lady living in a 100 year-old house shouldn’t have to fret that a city council, mayor, or manager has the power to graze down her house for a new drug store if she doesn’t want to sell.

This isn’t just a problem in far-away places like California or Connecticut. In Knoxville, local property owner Mark Saroff is facing the seizure of his properties known as the McClung buildings in the downtown area.

Here in Anderson County, one member of the local Industrial Development Board (IDB) has said off the record that he believes eminent domain should be used to confiscate the old Magnet Mills Hosiery Mill in the heart of Clinton.

And maybe that is the actual intention behind the sudden publicity regarding the Magnet Mills building and its “building code violations.”

If this IDB board member, or any other had the courage to vocalize their seizure plan, he might actually have a lot of folks in the community agree. Some will say the building is an eyesore. Some will say we should have something beautiful and distinguished instead of a vacant building and memories of a textile union strike.

But we need to be careful how smart we all think we are when vanity and greed are elevated over the civilized blessings of ownership. The Golden Rule is indeed golden. And I think we should apply it to property rights as well, including whoever owns Magnet Mills

2/17/2006 Published

Coming to Knoxville in March is the National College Speaking Tour “Call to Duty.” Traveling across America are openly gay men and women who have served in some capacity in the U.S. Military and are now speaking out publicly against the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

According to the mostly male speaking group, the American military should allow open expression and practice of homosexuality. They articulate a need for America to move past “ignorance” and intolerance. They say the American military doesn’t just need straight men, but openly gay ones too. They say they served America well.

This nationwide tour comes on the heels of the critically acclaimed gay cowboy movie “Brokeback Mountain.” Entertainment news sources already say plans are in the making for a female version and Oprah Winfrey is rumored to offer hopes that Halle Berry and Charleze Theron act the parts. And even country legend Willie Nelson is pitching in towards the cause with the Valentine’s Day release of his new song “Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly (Fond of Each Other).”

The song tells us of “strange impulses” out on the plain and Willie strums and hums that inside every cowboy is a “lady” who’d love to slip out, and likewise inside every woman is a “cowboy” who’d like to come out.

Am I a bigot if I say: “no, I don’t think so.” Is our American military discriminatory, or does the definition of “discrimination” keep changing? Is it homophobic to tell Willie that there is no man in me waiting to slip out and get with another woman?

While there are exceptions, I think as a nation we are very accepting of differences. Many of us know someone who is openly gay—some are friends, some are family. And we love them.

But the Call to Duty speakers, Willie Nelson and the Hollywood producers really should be more honest about their motives. Their concerted effort is to say to America that when it comes to protecting the future of our society, that being straight or gay means no difference. Both paths lead to the same end: namely the perpetuation of a healthy, prosperous, growing society.

But both don’t. Does compassion for a person really mean we should cease to promote what is best for the health and longevity of a society?

The line is being crossed from “acceptance of” to “promotion of.” While the mechanics of government can do a lot of things in our community and nation, it is the basic family unit that provides the building block for civilization. It is that family model that needs to be protected in order to perpetuate a society.

It is hard to promote the family however, when our children are bombarded by Willie and the gang with messages claiming that the height of your sexuality will not be expressed by marriage, impregnation, and the birth of a child…but by whatever tool, person, or thing which helps you achieve sexual gratification for the moment.

Their goal is for boys like my three sons, to look at openly gay men in the military, openly gay cowboys, openly gay priests, and conclude that there is an equivalent choice between acting on homosexual impulses or not. But there is no future for not only my sons, but for our nation if our young men and women should choose this course.

Outside of Muslim populations, Europe is dying. The birth rate per woman in Europe is not enough to even replace the dying. It seems their culture of narcissism and worship of sexual gratification ceases to provide any hope for a future. I don’t want the same for America.

1/20/2006
Published

I am amazed at the letters and guest columns that are still trickling in to the Oak Ridger about the controversy surrounding the publication of a student’s sex ed column.

Amazing still are the “grown-ups” marching to defend a column in which the young author drifted between opinion and fact. Statistics and “facts” were peppered in the column, yet there were few sources.

At the beginning of the article, the young author cites a survey of sexual activity, but with no source. Using this anonymous and non-dated survey, she then applies the model to Oak Ridge High School and tells the readers how many fellow students are most likely engaging in sexual activity.

But despite the failures of an article (which still could have been printed in the high school paper had the young author agreed to edit a small portion,) you would think by the hyper-emotional reaction that this sex article in small town America was the stuff for which education exists. Had this article been about anything other than sex, would there be such an outrage? Doubtful.

Even local educator Ray Oliver swept to the defense of the article’s publication by sending in a letter to this paper.

If only there were such local furor over the kids who manage to graduate without learning how to read.

What I’m coming to realize is that a debate rages in America between those who think man is a sexual being and those who believe he is a spiritual one. If man is a sexual being, then the governing principle for man is that which gives sexual pleasure is good. It is this principle of life that leads many in our society to continue to push the boundaries of what is acceptable in society in the realm of sexuality.

Vermont recently became the national spotlight a couple of weeks ago when Judge Edward Cashman handed down a 60-day sentence for child-rapist Mark Hulett. Hulett admitted he had raped a child countless times when she was between 7 and 10 years old.

In a Jan. 18th article from Brockton, Mass., 26-year-old Gregory Pathiakis pleaded guilty to the homosexual rape of one his teenage students, but Brockton Superior Court Judge Suzanne V. Delvecchio handed down no jail time for Pathiakis. Instead, she issued him a suspended, 2 ½ year term with five years probation.

Also sentenced this week was 36-year old Amy Lilley who had lesbian sexual relations with a 15-year old student. The former teacher and softball coach at Lecanto High School in Lecanto, Fla., was sentenced to two years of house arrest and 8 years probation.

The rape and molestation of children deserves harsher punishment than 60 days, house arrest, or probation.
Unless of course, your guiding principle is “that which gives sexual pleasure is good.” And apparently, we have many grown ups who must subscribe to this amoral principle.

I think the outrage about the Oak Ridge High School’s newspaper is more along the lines of “Educators Gone Wild” than it is about teaching students journalism, fact finding, editing, or codes of conduct.

The spotlight in our own local story is one and the same as many other communities—and that is an obsession with sex. The sexual revolution of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and our 60’s ancestors is now reaping its reward as we read and watch more and more stories of sexual predators and adults abusing children.

Their goal isn’t teaching kids about sex, it’s just another opportunity to talk about it. Their goal isn’t helping kids understand the biology of reproduction, it’s about injecting and many times infecting, the values regarding sex that have promoted a happy, healthy adult as well as society. We need to get back on track.

1/8/2006 Published

WBIR-TV Channel 10 General Manager Jeff Lee in Knoxville tells us he will be airing the controversial new television show “Book of Daniel” over East Tennessee airwaves. Says Lee, “The decision to watch it or not to watch it is entirely yours.”

The decision by WBIR was based in part on community input. Listening to top anchor Ted Hall on 97.5 FM on Wednesday morning, I was encouraged by his report that the community leaders who had been invited to a pre-screening of the show were overwhelming opposed to it. Obviously, community input didn’t carry much weight.
For those who may have missed the controversy, “Book of Daniel” centers on Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest. The cast includes his alcoholic wife; his son, a 23-year-old homosexual Republican; his daughter, a 16-year-old drug dealer who sells pot; a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop’s daughter; his lesbian secretary who is sleeping with his sister-in-law; his minister father who is having an affair with another church official. The show also depicts a white robed Jesus who has conversations with Daniel.

Flash back for a moment to the film Stolen Honor. Missing from Stolen Honor was short skirts or cleavage. There were no zoom in shots of sex scenes, drug usage, adultery—no foul language or martinis.

Stolen Honor was a series of interviews with former POW’s who lived through Vietnam. The film offered viewers two sides of the story of Nam—that of the POW’s and the actual film footage of Sen. John Kerry as he testified before Congress.
Locally, Let’s Talk Frank signed all the necessary paperwork and aired Stolen Honor. But bigger media outlets crumbled at the protests. Sinclair Broadcasting had planned to air the show, but found themselves the subject of a boycott as well as pressure from investors. Threats of protest made big sponsors like Burger King go weak in the knees. Stolen Honor’s airing came to a halt.

People howled—and the media listened. And I’m not opposed to that. But take a story line like “Book of Daniel” that not only offends many in the Christian faith, but offers nothing but a bleak view of man’s dysfunction and warped morality—and we get pat responses like “you don’t have to watch it.”

Are you believing how mixed up this is? Protest documentary: show gets pulled. Protest sex obsessed show which depicts Jesus: film rolls.

Let’s face it. When stations like WBIR are rolling the film on a boy who shot his principal—do they ever stop to wonder if the garbage they air in the name of “freedom of expression” has had a least a small level of impact on society?

There used to be a semblance of social authority. Growing up, I was always taught people were allowed to be different—but there were standards of behavior that were promoted for the health of a culture.

This unspoken social authority—or commonality regarding what’s good and moral for a healthy society—wasn’t just limited to Christians. It was a generally understood set of principles shared by Christians, Jews, non-believers—and people of many other faiths.
As we look around at the decline of families and evidence of an ailing society moving away from promoting what is best for the health and longevity of society, we realize the harvest of the Jerry Springer culture of selfish individualism and limitless sexual expression is finally upon us.

There comes a time when each of us needs to stand up and say enough is enough. We want TV that promotes the best in people—not the worst. Each of us is capable of great things—and TV used to help us get there.
Call or write WBIR.

12/9/2005
Published

In October of 2003 I watched a young Oak Ridge High School student stand up in front of the School Board and ask why she was stopped from handing out literature from her Christian club to her fellow students.

I emailed Gail Ward with the city to obtain the minutes of that particular meeting in an effort to find out this young woman’s name, but was told they wouldn’t be ready for another month. Ms. Ward invited me to check back with her but as often happens, I simply forgot to follow up.

Noteworthy is that we never saw an article in the local paper about this young woman. She didn’t make it to CNN. The ACLU hasn’t been to town to see if this anonymous young woman’s rights were violated. Jack McElroy, liberal-in-chief over at the Knoxville News Sentinel never even blinked.

Contrast that episode with the media feeding frenzy over the “sex ed” article and flesh-piercing montage on display in the ORHS newspaper.

Apparently, questioning the appropriateness of an article which includes the sentence “If you get a pregnancy test done and you find out that you are pregnant, you can make sure that the parents do not know” apparently puts you in the class of the Nazi Third Reich.

The facts of the case were barely mentioned as an aside by critics and editorialists. The most important fact being that while young media-darling Brittany thinks she’s in charge, the real editor in chief was and is, the Oak Ridge High School Principal Becky Ervin.

Ervin had clearly outlined the policy of the paper production. Such guidelines included the demand that the paper reach her desk for the stamp of approval BEFORE going to press.

But the rules weren’t followed. Ervin didn’t approve the paper and it was published without her review. Indeed, the journalism “teacher” Wanda Grooms taught her young journalism students a lesson, namely: “break the rules, then scream censorship.” Grooms should be stripped of her duties as adviser.

It’s time for an adult lesson. Shock-jocks are welcome to print up as many articles and pictures they want about body fluids, sex organs, and anti-parental authority. They’re welcome to pay to distribute them. But the grown up lesson for the day is: unless you own the paper, editing is a fact of life.

Mr. Bridgeman edits my columns. Mr. Bridgeman writes my headlines. Mr. Bridgeman decides that if my column is turned in past the deadline (like this one is), if it will make it into the paper at all. That’s not censorship– it’s an editorial fact of life.

But the national attention and over-wrought editorializing from the Oak Ridger and the Knox News Sentinel only serves to prolong the myth that Miss Brittany and Company can pitch a fit and get whatever they want. (Of course, only if you’re talking about “gittin’ it on” and not Nativity scenes.)

The facts are pretty simple. The sex-ed article, no matter how well written, was not the job or place of a student. That topic belongs with the school board, the parents, teachers, and administrators.

Several pictures of tattoos and body piercings were of children under age who had illegally obtained such procedures. Ervin was right to edit them.

Locals and hyper-media are banging the drums for the ACLU to ride to town to sue, sue, sue! But if they come, they won’t win, for while Ms. Grooms helped architect quite a drama, her journalism class needs a better understanding of censorship.

Perhaps a field trip to Cuba would enlighten the youngsters about political free speech. Try ridiculing Fidel Castro. Or maybe the young journalists could see what happens if they try to hand out a Bible on a street corner in China.

I’m glad to see Principal Ervin and Superintendent Bailey stood their ground. It was an important message that they are still in charge and willing to guide the energy and enthusiasm of the students. Rights and power do involve responsibility.

11/27/2005 Published

“We can’t be breeding right now,” says Les Knight, founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, in an article appearing last week for the San Francisco Chronicle. Due to his apocalyptic environmental beliefs, Knight says “It’s obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can’t be justified today.”

How often does the word “politics” make your stomach turn? “Politician” often conjures up an image of a flashy cheeseball armed with phony, tired cliches. But as we see from comments like Mr. Knight’s, politics is often about life and death…literally. So, we are compelled to get involved no matter how great our aversion.

Knight and other fellow travelers in the anti-reproduction movement are heavily armed with statistics about how much each child will consume of planet earth as it grows and reaches maturity. And yeah, there are some interesting numbers.

But for gosh sakes, what is the ultimate goal? If you propose a belief system such as “planet earth can’t sustain man” then you must do the math of what your belief system would mean if everyone adhered to it. I’ll cipher for Mr. Knight: One man + one woman + no breeding = planet earth inhabited by what? Master race of squirrels? Giant playground for wooly worms?

I can’t believe this guy is taken seriously– but not only does he get a forum in a large media venue, but he is a substitute high school teacher. Scary. Just imagine the hope he must inspire in our American youth.

I’m all for examining the way we live–the Golden Rule is indeed a golden principle to be applied to all aspects of our lives. But isn’t it amusing that conservatives are called “Nazis” for concern over the devaluing of life or the appropriateness of what’s considered “free speech,” but this environmental extremist who is literally advocating the extinction of man is called “interesting”, “thought provoking”, and “truly green”?

I’m not trying to quiet any discussion on the effects of population growth, for there are some legitimate issues associated with growing populations–but those are usually issues associated with market forces, such as more efficient trash removal or expanding water systems.
Population scare tactics often sold to our youngsters in college as well as high school as “fact” have been proven false time and time again. There seem to be no shortages of nacho chips or tater tots as the human race continues to grow. There still remain however, in places like Sudan, corrupt governments that intentionally starve their people for political gain.

One legitimate issue not talked about by “greenies” such as Knight, is the fact that population growth will continue to occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while Europeans aren’t reproducing at a rate to even replace their own populations. And the North American continent isn’t exactly reproducing by leaps and bounds either.

Various sources cite a needed birthrate of 2.1 children per woman to replace existing populations. According to recent statistics, the German birthrate is 1.3 children per woman; Italy: 1.2; Spain: 1.07; Russia: 1.17; England 1.66: Japan: 1.5; the United States 2.08 per woman. The average rate for all of Europe is 1.4 children per woman.

I think Les Knight belongs on the dark side of humanity. He calls himself an “optimistic pessimist.” I call him pathetic. But the tambourine he rattles is one of many notes in the chorus of self-absorption that European and American women are buying.

Why women in these countries aren’t having babies is truly a more important and worthy discussion than how many trees will fall in the lifetime of one child. Life and the continuation of life should be the greatest joy–not how many plastic bags can be recycled. It’s a tragedy we even have to have this argument.