Dear Friend,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is disgraceful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ronald L. Ramsey
Lieutenant Governor
Speaker of the Senate

1 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243
(615) 741-4524

The piece notes, “Obama … rarely goes to church and speaks far less about his religion than [former Presidents].” This constitutes, as reported by the Tribune, the President “…listen[ing] to God, avoid[ing] “phony religiosity,” and pursu[ing] “bold action” in the face of resistance or indifference.” Yet the Book advocates for “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” and “be[ing] ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you…”

I’m glad to hear that the President has a Christian faith. But the Tribune reports:

“When he emerged on the national stage, many Americans were uncertain about Obama’s religion and as many as one in five thought he was a Muslim. The president has previously said that although he did not grow up in a religious household, he became a Christian as an adult “by choice.”

On Thursday, he described a 2010 meeting with evangelical leader Billy Graham as transformative to his religious thinking, saying he had “prayed from the heart” at Graham’s North Carolina retreat and frequently thereafter.

“I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment – asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong,” he said.”

Surely it is revealing to know 20% of Americans at first believed him a Muslim while many more doubted he was a Christian. Obama himself labels as “transformative to his religious thinking” an experience from just 2010! I thought Jeremiah Wright and his church were the basis of his Christian faith. Now I find his thinking was “transformed” a mere year and a half ago?

That Barack Obama had an experience in 2010 that touched him deeply at a personal level is a good thing. I will pray for a full expansion and revelation of its import. But his experience is a departure point, not a destination. It was a step towards “adulthood” in the context of “When I was a child … I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

He is not even two years into what the Book calls transformation; “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind …” That is not a year long process; it’s a lifetime process.

A good place to start is a study on biblical distinctions between the actions of an individual and the actions of a nation made up of individuals. Nations are not judged by what they do. They are judged by what the individuals who corporately comprise the nation do and what that says about the nation as a whole.

All individual behavior is voluntary, not compulsory. Righteous behavior forced out of me against my will means nothing. Forcing people to pay for the care of others is not the same as the man who visits the prisoner, feeds the hungry and clothes the naked because he freely chooses to. The Good Samaritan was good as much because he put his enemy up and paid for his medical care and daily needs out of his own pocket as he was because he helped his enemy at all.

As long as Barack Obama’s transformative event does not lead him to repudiate his Progressivism, while I may be happy to welcome him into the kingdom of God as a fellow believer, I am under no compunction, biblical or otherwise, to pronounce all his decisions sound and godly. In fact, just the opposite is true. It’s why the Apostle urged, when speaking of leaders in the faith that they not be a new convert. New converts haven’t been tested and tried near enough. He’ll need time and the grace available to us all.

That Barack Obama had a transformative event at all was news to me. I’ll be watching closely to see its effect. I’m cautiously optimistic. Still as the Book notes, in order to keep myself pure and avoid participating in the sins of another I’ll “Lay hands suddenly on no man…”

University officials, trying desperately to apply make-up to this particular pig, insist it is merely a non-discrimination policy. Others, including many Vandy students and staff, disagree. In fact, according to FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,  in addition to students and normal citizens, Vandy’s new policy is opposed by,

…FIRE; the Christian Legal Society; the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nashville; the American Center for Law and Justice; more than half a dozen law professors; leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Southern Baptist Convention; and no fewer than 23 members of the U.S. Congress, all of whom had the same or similar objections to the policy…

According to The Christian Post, “An email sent to the chapter president of the Christian Legal Society from the school’s Office of Religious Life stated that the group cannot “preclude someone from a leadership position based on religious belief. Only performance-based criteria may be used.”

What it means, in practical terms, at least for religious groups, is that on Vanderbilt’s campus, a Christian group must accept a Muslim as a leader and vice-versa should a Muslim apply. Religious beliefs may not be used as a qualification for leadership in a religious group. I know it’s silly but evidently the administration at Vandy is SO much smarter than the rest of us they alone can see clearly in the matter.

Vanderbilt has been almost completely silent on the matter. However, last night they did hold a TownHall event on campus. The venue wasn’t even close to large enough for the crowd that attended and, in the estimation of Stephen Siao, a Junior at Vandy and President of the VU College Republicans, 90% to 95% of those students who managed to score a seat inside opposed the policy. Stephen, and Dr. Carol Swain,  professor of law and political science at Vandy and author of “Be the People: A Call to Reclaim America’s Faith and Promise” attended the meeting last night and were interviewed by FOX News this morning.

Prior to last night’s meeting, the Vanderbilt College Republicans recorded their own position on the policy in a brief but powerful video. In it, they refer to a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming that non-discrimination policies must defer to religious groups when it comes to the selection of leaders. Vandy’s position is diametrically opposed to the court’s ruling.

In addition to being illegal and generally ignorant, I’m unsure Vandy has thought through their policy. If a group cannot make common sense distinctions between discrimination and maintaining the core integrity of the group in question, where will it stop? As Dr. Swain observed, at last night’s TownHall, the administration signaled perhaps yet another change by denying the new policy was a “non-discrimination” policy and was instead an “all-comers” policy.

On its face that would appear to mean that anyone who wants to join or lead any group on campus is allowed to. Fraternities would have to admit women and sororities could no longer turn down male students who want to join. Same for any other club or group. How far are they willing to carry this. Are they going to allow any student to join any athletic team; short kids on the basketball team and girls on the football team? What about Vanderbilt itself. If it is requiring all comers to be admitted, are they going to do away with entrance requirements and let any student who applies to attend?

And if that last part is true, then I’m going to submit my college transcripts and request a Vanderbilt degree to replace my current sheepskin. I can’t be refused or discriminated against, after all. Although, given the general direction Vandy is headed in as evidenced by this discussion, I’m not sure a diploma from this previously prestigious university would be worth much.

This debate seems to be ramping up in DC over what ought to be a no-brainer; English as the official language of the United States.

According to Molly Hooper at The Hill, the GOP is getting ready to push recently drafted legislation recognizing English as our nation’s language, requiring the nation’s business to be conducted in English and having some level of fluency required for a person to become a naturalized citizen. Sounds like a sound and sensible idea to me.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), sponsor of the “English Language Unity Act of 2011,” notes, “It’s one of those 84 percent [approval] issues. I don’t know what the [Republican] leaders have up on the board that is more popular than official English.” One would think that such broad approval, the continued opportunity for developing national unity as opposed to fracturing our nation further and the common sense appeal of the idea would be enough. But it’s not.

The balance of Hooper’s article is devoted to dissecting the politics of the matter. When Harry Reid’s 2007 Immigration bill was amended with this idea, Barack Obama and Joe Biden both voted against it in the Senate; how internal GOP politics and popularity contests are impacting whose bill gets introduced; which Presidential candidates support the notion and which don’t; how the measure fits into the broader GOP “agenda.”

There’s no mention of whether the bill, as written, is Constitutionally sound. There’s no mention of whether or not the idea, on its face, has merit. There’s no mention of the problems it is intended to address and how those issues impact Americans, American business and our way of life. There’s no attention paid to why over 8 in 10 Americans support the issue. It’s all about the politics …

Of course, this has all been filtered through the lens of the reporter, as well. Ms. Hooper wrote the story to bring out the points she wanted. It’s always possible that 90% of her discussion with lawmakers, politicians and staffers was about things she chose to leave out of the article. I tend to think that is not the case, however. I’m pretty sure she wrote the things she did because that was the material that came up in the interviews. If it didn’t, elected officials can always correct the reporter and hone in on the issue in their answers.

It seems to me, however, that this is just more evidence of the process we have been objecting to for years now. It’s not enough that most Americans approve and want their views represented by their Representatives. It’s not enough to have debate on the merits of the proposal with a thorough airing of costs and benefits. It’s not enough for folks to support or oppose a measure on the principles involved and to be as gracious in victory as they are in defeat.

Because it’s all about the politics …

There are things we can do to fix the process. We can implement former Congressman John Shaddegg’s idea that all proposed bills contain the Constitutional justification for its introduction. We could limit the content of a bill and amendments to only one topic; better yet to only one item! We could consider having the number of sponsors on a bill be more important in deciding whether or not it comes up for a vote rather than how the vote would impact perception of the opposing party. Feel free to add more ideas in Comments below.

The bottom line is that Congress continues to drift farther from the People’s business towards Politics as business. That cannot be a good thing. English as the official language of the country, however, is a good thing. We should pass it because it is and not because it’s politically expedient or beneficial to do so.

Among its many features, HB2839 does three things:

• Section 1,(a),(1) “…empowers the federal government to establish one or more health care insurance exchanges to define, regulate and control the sale of health care insurance to both individuals and small businesses if the state does not establish such exchanges in a timely manner…”;
• Section 1,(a),(3) “…mandates certain activities and expenses to be borne by the state if federal health insurance exchanges operate in this state even if this state does not implement health insurance exchanges…  ”;
• Section 1,(a),(9) finds it “…necessary to establish a statutory framework for the operation of health care insurance exchanges operated in the public interest by the state in the event that the PPACA is sustained by the courts and implemented according to the schedule now specified…” (emphasis added)

The practical result is to have the state of Tennessee recognize the validity of ObamaCare, pay for all the aspects of ObamaCare and implement all the state structures needed to run and implement ObamaCare.

We have members of our federal delegation who were sent to Washington, DC, in part, specifically for their promises to repeal ObamaCare! We have a huge number of grassroots groups in Tennessee representing tens of thousands of Tennesseans who have clearly said we want no part of ObamaCare. Whenever and wherever Americans are polled on the matter, they overwhelmingly reject the notion of ObamaCare. But we have a Tennessee legislator, and a Republican at that, who is introducing legislation to establish ObamaCare as the law of the land in Tennessee, implement all of its bureaucracy and force us all to pay for its costs.

When and where will there be a state legislature with the integrity and the spine to just say no! No to unfunded mandates, no to federal government efforts to force programs and expenses on Tennessee; no to surrendering their obligation to represent Tennessee and Tennesseans first and only; no to a federal government that has stolen, bribed and coerced states into surrendering their constitutional place and power to their out of control and out of touch policies.

Just a month ago, right here in Middle Tennessee, a group of activists from across the state met with a few members of the legislature about just this sort of thing. Even the good legislators were confused on the notion. They spoke to us passionately about how bills are crafted and reducing the number of bills and fiscal notes and the process.

It had to be pointed out to them that, in these matters, we are not looking for any legislation at all, regardless of process or intent. What we want is for them to – Just. Say. No!! Don’t implement ObamaCare, don’t fund ObamaCare and don’t give the federal government access and power to do it when we don’t.

Stand up for Tennesseans and for the 10th amendment.  I am as big a proponent of working together with folks who disagree with me on issues as you will find.  I will be in disagreement with those legislators who support this bill.

Because the federal government is not sovereign in Tennessee, the Tennessee legislature is sovereign in Tennessee. Because if the Tennessee legislature will not fight for Tennesseans, then Tennesseans have lost their final and  most powerful voice. Because expanding the federal leviathan’s control over markets and governments which properly belong to the states and the People makes the People less powerful and endangers their rights. Because, because, because …

This is a bad bill. It needs to be done away with completely and not replaced by anything. If the feds want to implement this program, they need to be made to force its implementation by suing Tennessee and threatening whatever they can find to threaten us with.

If Tennessee, perhaps the reddest state in the union at this time, rolls over on this, what chance do we the People have of finding another state willing to take on the federal government. Call and write your state Reps and state Senators and tell them NOT to implement HB2839 and the eventual Senate companion.