 |
| link |
Top Stories
Thursday, May 26, 2022
Gun mass shooting scoreboard: US 101- UK 1; US 101 - Canada 4; US 101- France 8
Top Stories
Hagerty and Blackburn are among the eleven pro-Putin Republicans opposed to arming Ukraine.
.jpg)
Former KGB director Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly wants to rebuild the Russian empire. He has said the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
He has said, "As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory." He has taken the position that Russia has an obligation and a right to defend Russian-speaking people anywhere and claims his aggression is on behalf of Russians in other lands. He will fight on behalf of Russians in other countries even if has to kill or make refugees out of most of them in the process.
He also justifies his aggression based on fear of being encircled by enemies. Of course, NATO and the European Union are no threat to Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance and has no aim to forcibly annex any nation. Both the claim of aiding mistreated Russians in foreign lands and the fear of being encircled by enemies is a rationalization for Putin's aggression.
Since 2008, Russia has illegally occupied 20 percent of Georgian territory and has essentially made Georgia a client state. In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. Unless Russian aggression is stopped in Ukraine, the Baltic countries of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are likely to be the next targets of Russian aggression based on the same logic of aiding Russians in foreign lands and resisting encirclement.
Russia's war on Ukraine has been especially brutal. Russia has not just waged war on Ukraine's military but has targeted civilians, bombing apartment buildings, hospitals, and indiscriminately leveling cities. Russian forces have rounded up and murdered civilians and deported many to areas deep within Russia.
In light of Ukraine's brave resistance and the witness of the horrors of Russian war crimes, most of the civilized world has come to the aid of Ukraine, cutting off Russian access to commerce, boycotting Russia, and giving Ukraine the means to defend itself. The US has stepped up to the plate. While I wish we could have established a no-fly zone, the US is wise to do all it can without directly engaging Russia. A no-fly zone would have no doubt led to open Russian hostility with the US. Russia is a nuclear-armed nation and may very well launch nuclear weapons if war developed with the US or a NATO country. Putin has threatened such. We are wise to avoid direct engagement with Russia but are correct to do all we can short of military engagement. We are doing the morally correct and strategically wise thing by giving Ukraine the means to defend itself.
Recently, Congress passed a 40 billion dollar aid packet to Ukraine. The bill supplies Ukraine with military, humanitarian, and medical resources. In the Senate, the vote was 81-11, with all votes against coming from Republicans. The bill had previously passed in the House.
The action of the eleven Republicans disgusts me. Throughout the Cold War, it was Republicans who were steadfast in providing funding for nations resisting Russian aggression and making sure our military was adequately funded to protect our nation. It was Republicans who could be counted on to help weak nations in their fight to remain free. While the Cold War generally had bi-partisan support there was always a segment of Democrats in Congress who voted against funding the Cold War and who were isolationist and some were advocates of unilateral disarmament.
Now, Democrats are doing the right thing, all of them, and 11 of 50 Republican senators are against giving Ukraine the means to defend itself. We are witnessing David standing up to Goliath and all David asks for is a slingshot and eleven Republican senators say, "no."
Here is the list of Republicans voting against arming Ukraine:
- Rand Paul, R-Ky
- Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.
- John Boozman, R-Ark.
- Mike Braun, R-Ind.
- Mike Crapo, R-Idaho
- Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn
- Josh Hawley, R-Mo.
- Mike Lee, R-Utah,
- Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
- Roger Marshall, R-Kan.
- Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala.
If Tennesee had party registration, in protest of the pro-Putin vote of our two Senators I would have to change my registration from Republican to independent. If Hagerty or Blackburn ever pursue a run for the Republican nomination for President, I will vote for someone else. In the next primary, if either is challenged by a sane credible Republican, I will contribute to that candidate's campaign.
For someone in my income bracket, I contribute a considerable amount to Republican candidates. I am for now abstaining from any contribution to the campaigns of Hagerty or Blackburn or the National Republican Party or The National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC), are any PAC that may funnel money to either of our Senators or any of the other nine Senators on this list. I have just made a contribution to the campaign of Evan McMullin of Utah, an independent challenging Mike Lee.
I doubt I will vote for either Blackburn or Hagerty when they next run for election. One does not have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Abstaining is an honorable option. I have been a lifelong Republican and an active Republican. I am still a Republican but not a pro-Putin, appeasement Republican.
Top Stories
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
The U.S. is an outlier when it comes to gun deaths. Why? What can be done.
by Rod Williams, May 25, 2022 - Following the tragedy of the Uvalde school shooting we are hearing renewed calls for gun control. Not much will change. We could make small changes that might withstand constitutional muster but small changes will change little. Not much will change because we have the right to bear arms.
Unlike most of the world where rights are viewed as concessions granted by government, we believe we are endowed with rights. It is not easy to take away a right. Rights cannot be taken based on the mood of the voters at a particular point in time. Rights are not subject to simple majority rule.
Why do those who want to ban guns never propose repealing the Second Amendment? Why do those who want to impose gun control not come out and clearly say it is time to repeal the Second Amendment?
What they want to do is ignore the Second Amendment; not repeal it. If that can happen then none of our liberties are secure. If we can take away the right to bear arms by ignoring the Second Amendment, we can take away freedom of the press little by little, not by repealing the First Amendment but by ignoring it and rationalizing that it is antiquated and that "hate speech" must be prohibited. After all, when the First Amendment was written there were no blogs or Facebook or TV, or radio. The logic that new forms of communication make the First Amendment obsolete and thus the First Amendment can be ignored is as logical as saying because we have automatic weapons instead of flintlock rifles the Second Amendment can be ignored.
If the Second Amendment can be ignored due to public opinion and public opinion turns against the right to bear arms, then all of our liberties can depend on the public opinion of the moment.
The problem of gun violence in America is serious. We are an outlier. Why? What can be done? I wish I knew.
For more of my postings on the issue of gun violence see the following:
- ARE TENNESSEE’S GUN LAWS BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGARDING 18-20 YEAR OLDS? (Gun talk #5)
- Strict local gun policies aren’t effective in reducing gun violence. (Gun talk #4)
- World's most dangerous cities include St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Detroit. (Gun talk #3)
- Gun violence is a symptom of a dysfunctional society, not the root cause. (Gun talk #2)
- The U.S has the seventh highest firearms-related death rate in the world. (Gun talk #1)
Top Stories
Judge Rachel Bell rented office space in a building that her parents own, and directed grant money for the rent payments to be made to a company that she owns.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — An exclusive NewsChannel 5 investigation is raising questions about how a Davidson County judge spent taxpayer money from a $200,000 federal grant. .... Her grant application promised a "restorative justice" program that would initially focus on young people charged with non-violent crimes in North Nashville's 37208 zip code. ... Dennis Dycus, who retired from the State Comptroller's Office where he spent 39 years auditing local governments and nonprofits for fraud, told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "It's unusual, and as an auditor, I look for unusual things.".jpg)
Judge Rachel Bell
"You can't pay yourself, and that appears to be what is happening here," Dycus said. (link)
Top Stories
.jpg)
Morgan Ortagus endorses Kurt Winstead
The Tennessee Conservative [By Jason Vaughn] – Once endorsed by former President Donald Trump for Tennessee District 5’s spot in the U.S. House, one former candidate is serving as a national security advisor for another campaign after Republican Party officials found her to be ineligible to run for office.
Republican Congressional candidate Kurt Winstead’s team announced on Monday that Morgan Ortagus was now serving as the co-chair of a newly formed National Security Advisory Committee for his campaign. (read more)
Rod's comment: What is up with this? If Ortegas were to endorse anyone, I would have expected it to be Andy Ogles. I perceive him to be the most Trumpish candidate left in the race. Winstead seems to lack firm conservative credentials. During the senate contest between Bob Corker and Harold Ford, Jr some years ago, Winstead contributed to the Harold Ford campaign. Plus, at times Winstead has seemed soft on abortion. Something is going on that I don't yet see. Stay tuned.
Top Stories
Recent primaries are a mixed bag. They do not show repudiation of Trump but reveals his star is fading.
by Rod Williams, May 25, 2022- The recent primaries are an indication that Trump's star is fading. Not as fast as I would like, but it is fading. I wish it would have revealed a clear repudiation of Trumpism and it did not, but any fading is good. Does anyone think Trump will be more popular two years from now than he is today? I don't see how that can happen.
In recent primaries, some Trump candidates won, such as J. D. Vance of Ohio, and some lost. Dr. Mehmet Oz is too close to call and the vote is subject to a recount. Even if Oz does win, it is an indication that only half of the Republicans in Pennsylvania will take their marching orders from Trump. In some of the races, such as that of Sara Huckabee in Arkansas, Trump picked winners who would have won with or without his endorsement. A win by Huckabee indicates her strength; not the impact of a Trump endorsement. While a lot of Trump-endorsed candidates won their primary some were running unopposed or against weak challengers.
One of the losers who got a Trump endorsement was incumbent nut-job scandal-plagued Congressman Madison Cawthorn. Despite Trump's endorsement and plea to give him a second chance, he lost his primary and will not return to Congress. North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis took the lead in calling for Cawthorn's defeat. He said Cawthorn was ill-suited to serve in Congress. Tillis endorsed state Sen. Chuck Edwards. Tillis won; Trump lost. In Nebraska, Charles Herbster Trump's choice for governor lost after allegations surfaced that he had sexually harassed several women. There are limits to how much a Trump endorsement can do.
On the other hand, the biggest nut-job in the U. S. Congress easily won her primary. Tump-endorsed candidate Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene easily defeated five other Republicans on Tuesday. She is a Q-anon supporter. She was a regular contributor to a conspiracy website. She has supported almost every right-wing conspiracy theory circulating. She touts the Pizzagate theory, the Clinton kill-list, mass shootings as a false flag theory, and 9-11 as an inside job theory. She has advocated executing Democrat politicians. She has equated the Democrat Party with Nazies. She continues to claim Trump won the election in a landslide and that the election was stolen. Her Covid-19 theory is that Dr. Fauci is criminally liable for helping create the virus as a bio-weapon. She believes California's wildfires are the result of some kind of “space laser” that set things on fire and the Rothschild banking firm was behind it. You can't get nuttier than that but unfortunately, she is representative of much of the Trumpinista wing of the Republican Party these days. I was hoping for a clear repudiation of extremism and just plain nuttiness. But it didn't happen.
Some Republican governors are standing up to Trump and winning. The most obvious example is Georgia where former senator David Perdue was recruited by Trump to challenge Gov. Brian Kemp and lost. He didn't lose by just a little, he suffered a humiliating defeat.
I think one can conclude that ‘Stop the Steal’ is not the basis of a guaranteed win. Candidates who made the narrative of a 2020 stolen election the centerpiece of their campaigns did not do well. The best example is the Georgia secretary of state race where Brad Raffensperger, who Trump had targeted for defeat over his refusal to find Trump votes in Georgia and who said the 2020 election was a fair election, won over Trump-endorsed candidate Jody Hice. There was almost no other issue in that race except Trump targeted Raffensperger for defeat because he defended the integrity of the Georgia 2020 election.
On the other hand, in Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano won the Republican nominee for governor. He is a leading proponent of the stolen election narrative and was in Washington for the "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6, 2021. He made the stolen election narrative a centerpiece of his campaign.
The best one can say about the recent primaries for that those of us who want to see the Republican Party return to pre-Trump sanity, is that the results were mixed. We did not get the clear signal of Trump's repudiation for which we hoped, but neither is Trump shown to be invincible and there is good reason to believe his star is fading. That is a positive takeaway.
Top Stories
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
The Heritage Foundation Is Wrong on Ukraine
Its emerging populism undermines American interests and its own achievements.
by David French, The Dispatch, May 17 - I want to start today with the good news. On Monday the Senate voted on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, 81-11, to advance a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine. The vote came days after the House passed the package by a similar bipartisan majority, 368-57. The United States is still pouring resources into the fight against Russia, and it’s still largely united behind the Ukrainian people.
But there’s bad news. Resistance against Ukraine aid is growing on the right, and the center of right-wing resistance is no longer Tucker Carlson but one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington, the Heritage Foundation.
Heritage’s opposition would be troubling enough on the merits, but compounding the problem, Heritage (a think tank, remember) has abandoned careful analysis in support of cheap, easily rebutted MAGA talking points. It’s sad to see.
Rod's Comment: I agree. I have been a supporter of The Heritage Foundation for decades. At one time they were a scholarly rational think tank advancing conservative principles and engaging in thoughtful policy analysis. They were comparable to American Enterprise Institute, Cato, The Hoover Institute, or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Now, however, they have joined the ranks of the Trumpanista populist where emoting is more important than thinking. Worse still is they have become Putin apologists and advocates of Russian appeasement. I am not sure if I am currently a member or not. Most years I renew my membership automatically without giving it any thought. They have been one of the organizations that I always support. Not anymore. They no longer represent me or the views I support. It is sad to see Fox News, The American Conservative Union, and organizations like Heritage and other formerly conservative organizations abandon principles and become comfortable with authoritarianism and foreign policy appeasement. Unless Heritage does a course correction, they have seen their last dime from me.
Top Stories
Monday, May 23, 2022
Fact Checking Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘2,000 Mules’
... The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.
... The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise. ... deceptively edited video ... D'Souza spends a considerable amount of time arguing that Trump was winning key states and that Biden pulling ahead overnight on election night was suspicious. But the numbers have an explanation. ... Cell phone data, says Jones, “cannot show that a person dropped ballots in the box, only that they passed in its vicinity. It would be really difficult to use it to distinguish between someone who walked by on the sidewalk and someone who stopped and dropped in a ballot or two.” (To read the article which totally debunks this elaborate stolen election conspiracy theory documentary, follow this link.)
Top Stories
HUD may be about to commit a serious policy mistake, again
From Ed Pinto of AEI Housing Center - Earlier this week, Inside Mortgage Finance reported that “[o]fficials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development are having daily discussions about whether to reduce the mortgage insurance premium that applies to FHA loans.”
As our research shows, such a premium cut would stimulate more demand against today’s record-low supply and would thus get easily capitalized into higher home prices. Therefore such a step would do little to nothing for housing affordability.
HUD needs to look no further than FHA's last MIP premium cut in Jan. 2015, which was quickly capitalized into higher home prices for FHA and non-FHA borrowers alike. We described this in greater detail in the op-ed HUD should put entry-level homebuyers first, not special interest groups for American Banker.
To read the op-ed, click here.
Rod's Comment: When you are in a deep hole, you should stop digging. There are market forces that have caused the mushrooming of housing prices putting homeownership out of reach of many Americans and then there is government policy that contributed to the crisis. One such policy was the Federal Reserve purchasing too many Mortgage Backed Securities. The goal behind MBSs is to allow banks to sell off mortgages so they’d have more money available to lend to consumers. When that happens, then the market determines their value, and money spend purchasing MBS's is money not invested elsewhere. The market evaluates their value compared to comparable investments. The market evaluates the risk. When the Federal Reserve purchases them, then money for mortgage lending is created out of thin air. Excess money available for mortgage lending leads to higher prices for real estate. The old adage of too much money chasing too few goods applies. Home prices increase. Now, HUD is going to make the problem even worse. In the short run, lowering the cost of a home mortgage will help some consumers, but cheaper mortgages drive up housing prices.
Top Stories
Realizing the Dream: What Does the Success Sequence Have to Do with the Economic Welfare of Black and Hispanic Young Adults?
While a few individual minority members may have their lives improved by affirmative actions, it is not going to do much to lift many people out of poverty. There will still, for most people, be consequences for actions. We know what lifts people out of poverty: earning at least a high school degree, working full-time, and marrying before childbearing. I would add learning delayed gratification, but if you earn a high school degree, work full-time and marry before childbearing, you probably learned that along the way.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is hosting an event called "Realizing the Dream: What Does the Success Sequence Have to Do with the Economic Welfare of Black and Hispanic Young Adults?" This may be of interest to social workers, policymakers, educators, and citizens concerned with countering the current doctrine that excuses poverty and failure. This event is live in Washington D. C. but one may watch the event live on this link. After the event concludes, a full video will be posted within 24 hours. Below is more information about the event:
The success sequence—earning at least a high school degree, working full-time, and marrying before childbearing—is a proven path to the American dream. Ninety-seven percent of young adults who follow the sequence avoid poverty by their 30s, and a vast majority enter the middle class and beyond. But some have argued that the success sequence is less effective for African Americans, Hispanics, and young adults from low-income families. Is that true?
A new AEI and Institute for Family Studies report, “The Power of the Success Sequence for Disadvantaged Young Adults,” takes up this question. AEI’s W. Bradford Wilcox and Wendy Wang of the Institute for Family Studies will discuss the paper and spotlight a new video series, “Straight Talk About the Success Sequence.” A panel discussion will follow with Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, Ian Rowe, Isabel Sawhill, and Delano Squires.
To watch the event live or to view a video of the event within 24 hours after the event, follow this link.
Top Stories
John Ryder, RIP
by Rod Williams, May 23, 2022- Longtime Republican strategist, attorney, and civic leader John Ryder is dead at the age of 72. He passed away after a lengthy battle with cancer.John Ryder
I did not personally know John Ryder but I had met him and heard him speak several times, once I think was at a meeting of the Federalist Society and over the years twice, maybe three times, at First Tuesday events. He was impressive. He knew stats and numbers and facts and could spout them without notes. He could explain strategy and make it understandable and he was a wealth of knowledge on election laws. Many credit him as one of the leaders in turning the Tennessee Republican Party from a minority party into the supermajority party in the state.
He was former general counsel for the Republican National Committee, helped shape redistricting efforts across the state and the U.S., was a former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority board, and was active in Memphis and Shelby County governments serving as assistant county attorney for Shelby County, litigation counsel for the Shelby County Election Commission, and headed the Memphis and Shelby County Film Commission. He also taught election law at Vanderbilt University.
Those who know him well say Ryder was never bombastic and was always calm and well-mannered, something we see too little of in today's extreme partisan environment. One can not get more partisan than John Ryder and yet he had Democrats as friends and was respected by those who were his political opponents.
Former Senator Lamar Alexander said of Ryder, "He had good manners, and good taste so as society grew increasingly uncivil and coarse, John continued to have his pleasant disposition. He didn't raise his voice. He showed respect for his opponents, and he enjoyed fine wine and the opera." "With deft legal skills and an easy manner, John Ryder helped build the Tennessee Republican Party over nearly a half century. He effectively served the Republican National Committee as its counsel and the people of this region as a TVA board member. I admired John and counted him as a friend."
Scott Golden, Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party issued the following statement:
We have sadly just learned of the passing of our friend and a true champion for all Tennessee Republicans, Mr. John Ryder of Memphis. There are very few in our state that haven’t had the impact of the life of Mr. Ryder.
While working as an attorney at the firm of Harris Shelton, he volunteered and consulted in a variety of different capacities in both government and politics. Most recently, he just finished as President’s Trump appointee to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
For 16 years he served our state on the board of the Republican National Committee, completing his final tenure as the RNC’s General Counsel.
He’s been the Shelby County attorney and led multiple Republican redistricting efforts for the last 30 years.
Mr. Ryder has been a confidant of almost every elected Republican in Tennessee for the last half century through his tireless and selfless giving, support, and expertise. With his in-depth knowledge of both legal, bylaw, and rules, Mr. Ryder has crafted the process by which the Republican Party selects our Presidential nominees during his many appearances at the RNC Conventions over the years. His unmatched legacy and resume will never be forgotten by those who knew him and I am fortunate to have called him a friend and mentor as have many Chairmen of the Tennessee Republican Party.
Our deepest sympathies are with his wife, Lain, and his family during this time. Thank you for sharing John with the entire State of Tennessee and our Republican family and know that he will be truly missed by many.
For more see this, this, and this.
Top Stories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
