From Wiki: Davidson County is a county located in the U.S. state of Tennessee. As of 2000, the population was 569,891. The 2007 Census Estimate placed the population at 619,626.[1] Its county seat is Nashville. In 1963, the City of Nashville and the Davidson County government merged, so the county government is now known as the "Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County", or "Metro Nashville" for short.
Davidson County has the largest population in the 13-county Nashville-Davidson–Mufreesboro–Franklin Metropolitan Statistical Area. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 526 square miles (1,363 km²), of which, 502 square miles (1,301 km²) of it is land and 24 square miles (62 km²) of it (4.53%) is water.
As of the census[5] of 2000, there were 569,891 people, 237,405 households, and 138,169 families residing in the county. The population density was 1,135 people per square mile (438/km²). There were 252,977 housing units at an average density of 504 per square mile (194/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 66.99% White, 25.92% Black or African American, 0.29% Native American, 2.33% Asian, 0.07% Pacific Islander, 2.42% from other races, and 1.97% from two or more races. 4.58% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. In 2005 the racial makeup of the county was 61.7% non-Hispanic white, 27.5% African-American, 6.6% Latino and 2.8% Asian. In 2000 there were 237,405 households out of which 26.70% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 39.90% were married couples living together, 14.30% had a female householder with no husband present, and 41.80% were non-families. 33.40% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.20% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older.
The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 2.96. In the county, the population was spread out with 22.20% under the age of 18, 11.60% from 18 to 24, 34.00% from 25 to 44, 21.10% from 45 to 64, and 11.10% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 34 years. For every 100 females there were 93.80 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.80 males. The median income for a household in the county was $39,797, and the median income for a family was $49,317. Males had a median income of $33,844 versus $27,770 for females. The per capita income for the county was $23,069. About 10.00% of families and 13.00% of the population were below the poverty line, including 19.10% of those under age 18 and 10.50% of those age 65 or over.
All of Davidson County is encompassed under the consolidated city-county government of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. However, several municipalities that were incorporated before consolidation retain some autonomy as independent municipalities. In addition, several other communities in the county that lack the official status of incorporated municipalities (either because they were never incorporated or because they relinquished their municipal charters when consolidation occurred) maintain their independent identities to varying degrees. The City of Nashville and Davidson County merged in 1963 as a way for Nashville to combat the problems of urban sprawl. The combined entity is officially known as "the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County", and is popularly known as "Metro Nashville" or simply "Metro". It offers services such as police, fire, electricity, water and sewage treatment. When the Metro government was formed in 1963, the government was split into two service districts—the "urban services district" and the "general services district." The urban services district encompasses the 1963 boundaries of the former City of Nashville, and the general services district includes the remainder of Davidson County.
There are seven smaller municipalities within the consolidated city-county: Belle Meade, Berry Hill, Forest Hills, Lakewood, Oak Hill, Goodlettsville (partially), and Ridgetop (partially). These municipalities use a two-tier system of government, with the smaller municipality typically providing police services and the Metro Nashville government providing most other services. Nashville is governed by a mayor, vice-mayor, and 40-member Metropolitan Council. It uses the strong-mayor form of the mayor-council system.[16] The current mayor of Nashville is Karl Dean.
The Metropolitan Council is the legislative body of government for Nashville and Davidson County. There are 5 council members who are elected at large and 35 council members that represent individual districts. The Metro Council has regular meetings that are presided over by the vice-mayor, who is currently Diane Neighbors. The Metro Council meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m., according to the Metropolitan Charter.
Nashville has been a Democratic stronghold since at least the end of Reconstruction. While local elections are officially nonpartisan, nearly all of the city's elected officials are known to be Democrats. At the state level, Democrats hold all but one of the city's state house districts and all but one of the city's state senate districts. Democrats are no less dominant at the federal level. Since Reconstruction, the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to carry Nashville/Davidson County only twice. In 1968, George Wallace carried Nashville by a large enough margin that nearly enabled him to carry Tennessee. In 1972, Richard Nixon became the only Republican presidential candidate to carry Nashville. Since then, the Democrats have carried the city at the presidential level with relatively little difficulty. In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore carried Nashville with over 59% of the vote even as he narrowly lost his home state. In the 2004 election, John Kerry carried Nashville with 55% of the vote even as George W. Bush won the state by 14 points.
In 2008, Barack Obama carried Nashville with 60 percent of the vote even as John McCain won Tennessee by 15 points. At the federal level, Nashville is split between two congressional districts. Nearly all of the city is in the 5th District, currently represented by Democrat Jim Cooper. A Republican has not represented a significant portion of Nashville since 1875. While Republicans made a few spirited challenges in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, they have not made a serious bid for the district since 1972, when the Republican candidate gained only 38% of the vote even as Nixon carried the district by a large margin. The district's best-known congressman was probably Jo Byrns, who represented the district from 1909 to 1936 and was Speaker of the House for much of Franklin Roosevelt's first term.
Another nationally prominent congressman from Nashville was Percy Priest, who represented the district from 1941 to 1956 and was House Majority Whip from 1949 to 1953. Former mayors Richard Fulton and Bill Boner also sat in the U.S. House before assuming the Metro mayoral office. All of Nashville was located in one congressional district for most of the time from Reconstruction until the 2000 Census, when a small portion of southwestern Nashville was drawn into the heavily Republican 7th District. That district is currently represented by Marsha Blackburn of neighboring Williamson County; Blackburn represented much of the Nashville share of the 7th in the state senate from 1998 to 2002.
Today on the air 99.7 WTN talk radio show host Michael DelGiorno brought on both Senator Diane Black and Lou Ann Zelenik for a raw scolding about their negative campaigning against each other in the race for the TN 6th District Congressional seat. Metaphorically it was like watching Mike smash two skulls together as he reprimanded both of them. The castigation, condemning, lambasting, chiding, downdressing, rebuking, scorning, and admonishing, was not only entertaining but was also a very serious commentary of the effects of negative campaigns. You can listen to the audio below or at this link.
But will it change anything?
Who knows, but listening to two major Congressional candidates get berated on live radio by the host was like watching a dog being punished for messing the house.
Of course if I happened to live in the 6th district and were voting in this primary I would be casting a ballot for Kerry Roberts a conservative CPA who is NOT a party hack or career politician:
Disclaimer: Matt Collins is the Former Vice Chair of both the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party and the TN Republican Liberty Caucus. He is also the Davidson County Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty, and a talk radio producer at 99.7 WTN. Nothing he communicates is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization he belongs to or is an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America's Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. His opinions are his own.
As a leader in the tea party / liberty movement I have been asked recently about who my fellow Tennesseans should support in the Gubernatorial race. Although the Campaign for Liberty does not endorse candidates, and the Tennessee Republican Liberty Caucus has chosen not to endorse a Gubernatorial candidate in this primary, I am going to share my personal thoughts (which of course in no way officially represents anyone other than just me although I am have a feeling I am writing what many others are also thinking).
As we approach election day no doubt many conservative and libertarian voters, tea partiers, and others will be wondering which Republican to vote for in the quagmire that is the Tennessee Gubernatorial primary. What's a principled individual to do?
The choices are pretty bleak. The problem before us is that from the ideals of liberty there are 3 candidates in the race: Bad, Worse, and Worst.
I have not been shy about making it quite well known that both Representative Zach Wamp and Mayor Bill Haslam are unfit to be the next Governor of TN for various reasons: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=21733 (If anyone would like an expanded and updated list of transgressions by these two and why I would never support them, just e-mail me and I'll be happy to share).
That leaves us with a final choice of Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey who is an empty suit and an inch deep. If you ever have a conversation with him (assuming he gives you a chance to speak) you can ask some specific questions and you too will begin to see him as a paper tiger. His surface rhetoric is good, but when you dig, poke, and prod, it becomes very clear that there is little-to-no substance. Don't take my word for it though, ask him yourself by e-mailing him: lt.gov.ron.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov or by meeting him in person at one of his upcoming events: http://www.teamronramsey.com/events
When Lt Gov Ramsey mentions fighting federal encroachment ask him how he plans to do it, what methods will work the best, and which powers he will use as Governor to undertake the task. You should also ask him why he voted to raise taxes last year instead of demanding a spending cut. Ask him for details, ask him for specifics. And then follow up with 2 or 3 questions forcing him to expound on his answers. Don't let him get away with emotional feel-good statements, soundbites, and platitudes which he so often does. My guess is that after speaking with him you'll arrive at the same conclusion that I have about his lack of philosophical breadth seeing that it's all rhetoric and merely a front.
So what is a principled voter to do?
The realities are that one can either vote strategically or vote in protest. A strategic vote would mean casting a vote for Lt Governor Ron Ramsey who is the least offensive of the other candidates, although not by much. A protest vote would be leaving blank the Gubernatorial section of the ballot.
From an objective perspective, there are advantages to voting strategically for Lt Governor Ron Ramsey. If Ron Ramsey happens to get elected, it will mostly be due to the Tea Party / independent conservative movement. That means once he is in office he will be more apt to take our calls and will be more easily persuaded by our posse. In other words he will be forced to dance with the people that brought him to the ball. More significantly though is that a strategic vote for Lt Governor Ron Ramsey might possibly keep the worst of the candidates (Wamp and Haslam) out of the Governor's mansion.
However from a principled perspective voting "for the lesser of the evils" still results in "evil". A protest vote (turning in a blank ballot) against the marginal candidate resulting in the win of one of the worst candidates would send a clear signal that the principled voters don't accept what is being shoveled in our direction. Also it begs the question of why one should support candidates who are going to raise our taxes, per their track record? A vote is an endorsement of principles and voting for someone you don't agree with can be understood by many as compromising one's principals. Will you be able to sleep at night knowing you supported someone who has limited your liberty in the past and will do so in the future? Principle over politics, principle over pragmatism. By voting for a big-government faux-liberty candidate such as Lt Governor Ron Ramsey you are essentially condoning their actions and facade.
So again, what is a principled Republican voter to do?
The arguments for casting a protest vote and the arguments for casting a strategic vote are both valid, hold merit, and in this instance I believe warrant debate. The only advice I have to offer my fellow libertarian / independent conservative / tea partiers is that the decision whether to vote for the "lesser of the evils" or "none of the above" is up to each individual. After carefully reading, studying, pondering, and searching within, everyone must decide for themselves.
Disclaimer:
Matt Collins is the Former Vice Chair of both the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party and the TN Republican Liberty Caucus. He is also the Davidson County Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty, and a talk radio producer at 99.7 WTN. Nothing he communicates is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization he belongs to or is an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America's Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, Rand Paul for Senate, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. His opinions are his own.
Apparently the bailout-voting Republican Gubernatorial candidate Representative "Zigzag" Zach Wamp directly confronted Nashville-based nationally syndicated talk show host Phil Valentine in an aggressive manner this past weekend at a local event.
Obviously his voting record makes him not worthy of the Republican nomination, but does Representative Wamp's temperament also demonstrate that he would be an ineffective leader? Given his history of substance abuse combined with this incident, one has to wonder if is he even stable enough to be Governor?
I have just returned home from New Orleans where the 2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference was held. I was there, on the ground, witnessing and participating in the events firsthand.
Regardless of one's desired outcome, the SRLC straw poll results should raise some legitimate questions in the minds of any objective and reasonable individual. These are questions that the SRLC or the firm that conducted the poll, Wilson-Research Strategies (the RNC is one of their clients), should be happy to answer if they are interested in retaining an aura of integrity, transparency, and credibility. One of the first questions is whether or not there were any ballots that were spoiled? If so what were the criteria and threshold for a ballot to be considered "spoiled"? Will an independent and open audit be allowed of all of the ballots? Were the ballots actually numbered or encoded as was suggested they would be? Can the ballots now be inspected by parties other than SRLC or W-R-S staff?
Late in the afternoon on Saturday (immediately following Ron Paul's speech) I walked by the room where the voting was taking place and the doors were closed. Conference participants were being kept out of the room and told that voting would reopen again "soon". When someone asked why the doors to the room where the straw poll was being conducted were closed, the gentleman at the door said that they were "tabulating a batch" of ballots. The obvious question that immediately came to mind: ‘who' was tabulating the ballots, and did each candidate have representation in the room while these ballots were being tabulated? Also was it standard operating procedure to periodically tabulate the ballots throughout the entire weekend? And if so, following each tabulation, were the most recent counts made public? Given the statistical proximity of the top two contenders one would think that more details would be revealed in a prudent effort to ensure transparency-the apparent difference between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is a sliver of a fraction (0.0055%).
Until these questions are answered it would be wise for the media to refrain from referring to Governor Romney as the "winner" of the straw poll while such a fine and statistically insignificant difference between the top contenders exist. And because of the heightened atmosphere surrounding this poll due to the current political zeitgeist it would be irresponsible for anything other than full transparency of the procedure and methods of this straw poll to be revealed.
There were other disconcerting issues that occurred during the weekend. In my experience the SRLC was very poorly organized and inefficient. Registration was chaotic, vague, and not intuitive; signage was sorely lacking and unclear. Also registration was closed as early as 1pm on Saturday causing anyone who had not picked up credentials by that time to be denied voting privileges as well as access to the ballroom where the speeches were being delivered. The parking garages at the hotel were full early in the day with the nearest parking being 20 minutes away by foot. The straw poll voting times were erratic too. Supposedly the ballots were not printed on time and the straw poll did not open on schedule. I had been informed that 2pm was when voting opened on Friday whereas it was supposed to open at 10am.
The entire SRLC seemed disorganized and sloppy as a whole, not to mention confusing. There were several individuals that had the proper credentials but were denied entry into the "Taste of Louisiana" reception on Friday night. Accurate schedules, informational help, maps, question and answer desks etc, were not made readily available for ease of access. All of this is a bit saddening considering the Party is going to attempt to retake nationwide political power in the next few months. Having such a difficult time organizing their own conference I have to wonder about their effectiveness when it matters most, during election season.
But in all fairness I must say that considering the fact that the Constitutionally conservative / limited-government wing of the Republican Party has grown substantially compared to previous years, the event was indeed very encouraging. In fact judging by the reception that Ron Paul received during his speech I would say that the Republican Party is slowly but surely starting to embrace the ideals of limited government conservatism. The feeling in the room when Congressman Paul spoke was beyond electric and the prevailing excitement was not just emanating from ardent Ron Paul supporters. Not only rank-and-file Republicans, but the GOP leadership is also starting to embrace the liberty movement into their fold.
I have a question: What in the wide wide world of sports is a going on with Obama's Dept. of dis-education? Saturday, the educator in chief announced his reforms plans for the Bush era No Child gets an Education Act.
First of all, let me say how painful it is to repeat the fact that a Republican Congress and a Republican President concocted this 8-trillion headed hydra that the states and their public schools must now navigate. Do you still wonder why I call most Republicans DeceptiCONS?
Now back to Obamastotle. In trademark, no! Obama can't possibly be that stupid fashion, Obamastotle foolishly calls for schools to bail on grades and any pretension for academic achievement, that might cause teachers to actually show up and get results. Instead, we should judge schools by how good the kids attendance is and how many blithering idiots they can confer "graduation diplomas" on. of course, Dear Leader can't be bothered with defining what comprises achievement for the diploma, no we'll leave that to the teachers unions who will blackmail the local school board to accept its edicts or face a Monday without babysitters, I mean teachers.
Obamastotle proposes that the current Soviet style requirements that every future slave to the debt state, some call them students, must pass proficiency test for math and science, need to give way to less "utopian" requirements that they all graduate, prepared for college and a career.
Maybe someone other than me will ask who the next generation of loggers, woodworkers, welders and ditch-diggers will be if every kid must trudge off to 4-year indoctrination centers before they can pick up an ax or strike the acetylene on a cutting torch? Obamastotle also recycled the campaign slogan of by "rewarding schools that commit to change." What that change is we can only imagine. Maybe it means increasing their intake of celery and carrots, like Michelle Obama is currently ordering up for our kids.
Regardless of the "goals" for our children set by Obamastotle, the blame for this intrusion can be laid at the feet of the Republican Party that implemented "No Child Gets An Education" instead of dismantling the program when they had the chance.
IS SCOTT BROWN THE GOP ANTICHRIST? Conservatives Joined Forces At CPAC, But Mike Church Faces The Future
NEW ORLEANS, La – Eyes across America were trained on Washington D.C. over this past weekend as the mainstream conservative movement tried mending fences with true conservatives. At issue? The way so-called conservatives on Capitol Hill have been taking on the liberalism that continues to stain public policy. For Mike Church, an anointed leader in the States’ Rights movement, the event showed what’s right - and what needs serious improvement.
"We came, we saw, we conquered... Veni Vidi Vici! Liberty was everywhere and so were the Founders,” said Church. There was one place Church had issue with: the main hall. As Church - and many in the blogosphere have been reporting - the so-called “poster child” conservatives appeared to have things all wrong.
“I heard Rush Limbaugh say that since Ron Paul won the CPAC Straw Poll, that the event ‘wasn’t about conservatism,’” explained Church. “He’s right. It was about the Principles of '98. if that doesn't sound familiar outside a Bill Clinton pizza party with interns, run a Google search for Thomas Jefferson, 1798, Kentucky. Notice to DeceptiCONS...it's on!"
One Decepticon in the Mike Church crosshairs: newly-minted Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Being one of the only voices questioning the celebration over Brown’s win the Bay State, Church questioned Brown’s motives from Day One. How interesting that Brown’s recently announced support of President Barack Obama’s so-called “jobs bill,” which thinking people like Church have reviled as a retread of the President’s hideously unsuccessful “Stimulus Package” of 2009.
“People in Massachusetts - you got who you voted for and, now, so do the rest of us,” said Church, who added that seeing Brown’s true colors do offer some hope. “Maybe this time people will learn from the ‘Massachusetts mistake’ and vote for values, not the letters after their name.”
###
The Mike Church Show is the first ever produced talk show on Sirius Satellite Radio. A radio talk show host, author, filmmaker, and singer/songwriter, Mike Church is best known for his fearless ability to skewer liberalism and the people that practice it with the in-depth conservative analysis that only he can provide. Church has been included on the Askmen.com list of "Top Ten Shock Jocks in America,” but his devoted fans know him best as "The King Dude." Church can currently be heard on Sirius XM Radio - Sirius Patriot 144 and XM America Right 166. Find out more about the world of Mike Church at www.MikeChurch.com.
Church is also the CEO of Founding Father Films, which is dedicated to telling the truth about true American history. The mission of Founding Father Films is to take what people aren’t taught in school, teach them what was ignored and make it entertaining. The creator of the heralded documentaries, “The Road to Independence,” “The Fame of Our Fathers,” and “The Spirit of ’76,” Church also created the Operate Educate program. Designed as a mechanism for teachers to obtain a free copies of his documentaries for their classrooms (traditional and home-school scenarios), Operation Educate runs solely on donations and hopes to ensure that America’s next generation goes into the world understanding how the Constitution came to be as well as its modern-day applications.
The Davidson County Republican Party Executive Committee voted to remove me as 1st Vice Chair by a vote of 14-5 at a special purge hearing in late November. While the vote may have indeed taken place, the hearing that initiated it was improper, illegitimate, and contrary to the Party rules. Because of this the vote itself is null and void, thus I am still currently the Vice Chair of the Davidson County Republican Party.
The vote during the hearing was not valid because the hearing itself was not valid. The reasons of which that I will explain below, primarily stem from Chairman Starnes' and other Party leaders' inability to follow the Party's rules on the subject of removal. There are several major and critical holes in their procedures as well as a few minor ones. If the Party is to take such a significant measure and undergo a task as grave as removing someone from their duly elected position, for any integrity in this process to be maintained, they must adhere to the rules.
First and foremost the movement to hold the hearing was not executed correctly. TNGOP rules and regulations state "The Chairman of the County Party must sign the Motion [for the hearing] and the Secretary must attest it. The Motion must also be signed by the other County Party Executive Committee members who voted for the Motion....The Motion shall include a certificate by the County Party Secretary that the Motion has been served as required below..." However Chairman Starnes and Secretary Barbara Oonk failed to sign the form showing they voted for the purge. They also falsely attested that 14 officers had signed the motion to remove, in actuality only 12 officers did, which was not enough signatures necessary to initiate the purge hearing.
Myself, and at least 4 other officers of the DCRP-EC were not asked about availability of a date for the purge hearing. Section 2-I of the TRP Rules for removal of County Officers says that "The members of the County Party Executive Committee should be polled before the Motion is prepared to ensure that the required number of Executive Committee members will in fact attend on the date chosen." This was a very inconvenient time due to its proximity to Thanksgiving but the entire DCRP-EC was not polled for availability, another example, among many, of Chairman Starnes' disregard for the rules.
The copy of the TRP 'Rules For Removal Of County Officers' that was sent to me by the DCRP had pages missing and were removed by instructions issued from Chairman Starnes. Out of a document numbered to page 8 (assuming that was indeed the end of the document), the 5th page was excluded. When this was raised at the hearing it was mentioned that Chairman Starnes and/or Secretary Barbara Oonk "did not think that page 5 was relevant or necessary to include"! I asked what was on page 5 and they said that page 5 contained instructions for removal of the County Party Chairman. Besides the fact that they excluded pages of the rules, besides the fact that they took it upon themselves to decide which pages might be relevant to me and which might not, they were obviously censoring the rules in an effort to prevent anyone from knowing the procedure to oust the Chair! There may have indeed been relevant items to my hearing on that page, but I was never given the opportunity to determine that for myself.
The copy of the TRP Rules for removal of County Officers also apparently contains errors and typos. Section II-O states "The affirmative votes of at least 2/3rd of the State Party Executive Committee Members present in person are required for removal". When this was raised at the purge hearing regarding what the procedure was for having both a secret ballot and yet also knowing that 2/3 of the SEC members voted for removal, it was arbitrarily stated that the document "contained a typo on this matter" without any other statement given to back up this assertion. Assuming this is true it raises the question of what other errors were contained in the document? How can one base a purge hearing on documents that are inaccurate and cause the rules to be effectively arbitrary? How are we to follow the rules when they are not even written down correctly?
On 11/23/09 at 6:36pm Attorney Paul Ney sent an e-mail to me with procedures and an outline on the process for the purge hearing to be held the following evening. This was less than 24 hours notice, not enough reasonable time to prepare. Also in that same e-mail Mr. Ney notified that he would be presiding over the hearing. I have the utmost respect for Mr Ney given what I know of him. However less than 24 hours notice on these two matters would hardly be considered "fair" by any standard.
When the minutes from the October 27th DCRP Executive Committee Meeting were sent out to the members by Secretary Barbara Oonk, they were "whitewashed". Discussion and comments made by Region Chair Dewey Cooksey, Director at Large Barry Donegan, SEC Members John Ambrose, and Mark Winslow, 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis and others were completely omitted. Secretary Barbara Oonk has even admitted that Chairman Starnes and Attorney Austin McMullen "edit" the minutes of DCRP-EC meetings prior to release to anyone else (Secretary Oonk told me on the phone last spring that I was prohibited from seeing any minutes until after Chairman Starnes edits and approves them). The motion for the purge hearing was not listed on the agenda for the 27tt as it should've been under "New Business". It was a sneaky, slimy, underhanded blindside improper maneuver tacked on to the last few moments of the meeting that was orchestrated by Chairman Starnes, and executed by Diane DiStasio.
At the purge hearing there was also confusion on which set of DCRP Bylaws the Party is currently operating under. The TRP Rules Committee at the time of the hearing had not yet approved the DCRP's newly voted upon bylaws. Some of these revisions were directly relevant to my defense. But because it was not clearly understood if we were operating under the new or old bylaws I was not able to properly defend myself on several points. Newer versions of the bylaws that may or may not be in effect specifically discuss using one's title in a way that purports to represent the Party - which of course I am not guilty of.
And finally the hearing was held behind closed doors by decree of Mr. Ney. Although his decree to remove People from the room was congruent with Roberts Rules of Order, it is incompatible with openness and transparency that is necessary for democratic process in a free society. All DCRP officers were elected in an open forum by the People in the Republican Party of Davidson County, those who voted us in to office have a right to be there if there is a removal hearing.
I was informed by an individual who is a credible source that there were conversations (possibly in the form of e-mails) between Chairman Starnes, TRP Chairman DeVaney, Paul Ney, and TRP CoS John Newman about a pre-determined outcome for the purge hearing. I requested discovery of all matters within the State Party and within the DCRP among other officers of any e-mails, notes, conversations, etc relevant to myself and the purge hearing. In a fair, open, and honest situation this request for sunshine and discovery would've been respected. However because I was denied the ability to view what I had a right to view, this indicated that there is more than likely something they are trying to hide. I was specifically informed by this anonymous source that "Mr. Ney was told in advance by either Devaney or Newman what the outcome of the hearing had to be".
At the previous DCRP-EC meeting in October, until opposition was raised, Chairman Starnes was attempting to "railroad" the installation of Mr. Tim Lee into the position of Director-at-Large formerly held by Jon Crisp. She was attempting to appoint or decree that Mr. Lee fill the open position regardless that the bylaws clearly state that the Executive Committee must vote any new officers into office. That is typical behavior for Chairman Starnes but I now realize that her purpose in railroading Tim Lee into his current position was to gain another vote in favor of my purge.
Some might wonder why I have waited until now to make this known. The issue is that while I suspected the hearing itself was illegitimate due to the concept of fruit gained from a poisonous tree, in an effort to minimize Party divisiveness I did not publicly raise any of this. Some of the above points were mentioned at the hearing however they were not fully pursued to their logical conclusion. I realize after close inspection of the events that transpired that these points are valid and that I was indeed not legally voted out of the position of 1st Vice Chair of the Davidson County Republican Party. These are not minimal technicalities or trivial violations of common fairness. These are outright gross examples of the inability of Chairman Starnes and others to follow the Party rules with an alleged pre-plotted effort by the TRP leadership to have me purged.
I had indeed offered to work with Chairman Starnes and the rest of the Executive Committee to put our differences behind us multiple times. Chairman Starnes refused to return e-mails and phone calls from myself and 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis. She was absolutely resistant to any sort of unity or olive branches. At the purge hearing I explicitly offered to attempt to work out our differences and move forward to build a stronger Party. Unfortunately Chairman Starnes, the puppet master Beth Cambell, and their ignorant minions were only deadset on my removal, esprit de corps be damned.
I was trying to build the Party and move it forward into the future. I was not attempting to be destructive of the Party contrary to their hypocritical claims, remember they were the ones who begun this divisive action. It is a shame that those who have a personal vendetta against me are the ones being destructive of the Party by way of this unfounded purge in which I have broken no rules.
Mentioning many times previously that I have violated no bylaws, it is pertinent to list the accusations against me so that their obviously unsubstantiated claims can be known.
The motion made by Diane DiStasio (who is rumored to be an event planner for the upcoming National Tea Party Convention interestingly enough) at the request and direction of Chairman Starnes was to remove Matt Collins as 1st Vice Chairman of the DCRP for "cause" as defined in Art III Sec 4 of TN GOP Bylaws and Rule H.
The alleged conduct constituting "cause" includes:
1- Behavior not supportive of the Republican Platform
2- Behavior aimed at advancing his personal opinions of the cause of the Libertarian Party and candidates above that of the Republican Party
3- Use of the DCRP title when expressing personal opinions derogatory to, and disrespectful of, Republican candidates and elected officials.
4- Using his title while commenting on issues or legislation creating the impression that he was speaking for the Republican Party when merely stating his own personal views.
5- Refusal to remove his title from written communication stating his personal opinion after two requests from the Communications Committee Chairman
6- Insistence on being undiplomatic, using unprofessional actions and words, as the appropriate way to make a statement or advance a cause
7- Posturing himself as the "conscience of the Davidson County Republican Party" and refusing to find common ground, or civil discourse
8-Personal written statements demonstrating primary loyalties to libertarian causes and philosophies
9 - Public statements on at least one occasion at Republican functions that he used to be a Republican but is now a "libertarian"
10 - Personal public stances, disclaimers not withstanding, that have drawn negative reactions from state party officials, the press, and loyal Republicans
11- Engaging in conduct and making statements that have drawn criticism from bona fide Republicans statewide and have undermined the ability and effectiveness of the Republican Party.
Each one of the above points is easy to refute and can be done in only a few short sentences:
1- I was unaware that absolute adherence to the Republican Platform is necessary for holding an office within the Party. And while I of course agree with the majority of the Platform, I do urge my fellow Republicans to follow it. It should be noted that there were several instances where Senator John McCain's Presidential platform did not coincide with the official Republican Platform. Also gun control laws and Democrat-style bailouts are against the Platform too (such as what Zach Wamp and Bill Haslam support). I support limited government under the US Constitution which largely aligns with the GOP Platform; their assertion that I do not is patently false.
2- I am not nor have I been an active member of the "Libertarian Party". There is confusion as the result of honest ignorance that being a "libertarian" (lower case) vs being a "Libertarian" (upper case) are indeed not one in the same. Small "l" libertarians believe in the philosophy of limited government. It is worth pointing out that most American voters consider themselves "libertarian leaning" on one or more issues. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/gallups-conservatives-and-libertarians/ Big "L" Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party. It is unfortunate that this ignorance exists, but even more unfortunate that it is being exploited by several individuals in a personal vendetta against me through a whisper campaign. Even LP Chair of Davidson County Daniel Lewis has written a letter to Chairman Starnes informing her that I am not a member of the LP! http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/11/19/matt-collins-is-not-now-nor-has-he-ever-been-a-member-of-the-libertarian-party/
3 and #4- In every single use of my title, I explicitly disclaimed my words as NOT being representative of the Party. To assert otherwise is flat out untrue. The newly voted upon by laws state that "Unless approved by the Executive Committee, no member of the Executive Committee will use his title or position on the Executive Committee in a way that explicitly implies the endorsement of the DCRP or Executive Committee for or against any candidate or issue that is subject to election." I have never used my title or position in a way that explicitly implies the endorsement of the DCRP or the EC; I never claim to speak for the Party, and I never have.
5- I have broken no bylaws because my title was never used in such a way that implied the endorsement of the DCRP (See #3). Also the Communications Committee can request action but cannot make rules for the Party or institute bylaw changes on their own. The Communications Committee Chairman has no authority over any officers or members of the Party unless the Executive Committee makes it so, which it has not.
6- This is an unquantifiable relative and subjective point that does not violate any bylaw.
7- The phrase "Conscience of the Republican Party" is the slogan of the Republican Liberty Caucus, an organization designed to "to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party". I am the Vice Chair of the TN RLC - http://www.rlc.org/ and http://rlctn.org/
8- Again this is confusing the big "L" vs little "l" terminology (see #2). Libertarian Party is not the same as libertarian philosophy. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were both self-described libertarians and were two of the greatest Republicans in the history of the Party. Ronald Reagan himself even said that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
9- A half truth verging on a blatant lie. I was raised in a Republican household and considered myself a Republican until I attended college. I then considered myself a Libertarian for a very brief amount of time (about a year), and have since returned to the Republican Party as a limited-government / Constitutional Republican. I have signed an oath of allegiance to the Republican Party affirming that I am a Republican; that oath is still in effect. I am a Republican, any assertion otherwise is false.
10- and 11- Drawing negative criticism is unavoidable in political discourse. To think otherwise is absurd. Every Republican who has ever run for office or held a prominent and influential position has drawn negative criticism from both Republicans, non-Republicans, and the media.
At the purge hearing all of the above points were easily refuted one-at-a-time. The Executive Committee members had no legitimate reason to vote me out, I had not violated any rules or bylaws. Their stated accusations were based upon half-truths, misunderstandings, and innuendo. Markham Gross, a DCRP delegate at the convention even had a private conversation with Chairman Starnes in which she admitted twice to him that I had not broken any rules or bylaws.
As of now January 25, 2010 I have received no response from Secretary Barbara Oonk in the 5 days following my request for the official minutes from the purge hearing.
A lawsuit by me against most of the officers of the DCRP is absolutely warranted, among other reasons, for violating the rules of the Party, and also defamation of my character.
If the officers of the DCRP had any integrity, (I doubt they will prove so), then they would quickly move to oust Chairman Starnes. The irony is that Chairman Starnes, a former Democrat, is the one who should be considered for removal for the following actions that clearly constitute "cause for removal" moreso than any of my actions:
- Chairman Starnes has modified and withheld official minutes from myself and other officers
- Chairman Starnes took longer than 60 hours last spring to reply various phone calls, and e-mails, including my attempt at scheduling a one-on-one meeting and even 72 hours after the initial request she still refused to set a date and location.
- Chairman Starnes had ignored repeated requests last spring by both myself and 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis to discuss matters over coffee
- Chairman Starnes openly libeled me in an e-mail to the entire DCRP-EC on 5/19 accusing me of "trying to destroy the Party"
- Chairman Starnes openly and publicly slandered me at the Bellevue Breakfast Club September 5th saying that I "was doing nothing" while also slandering 2nd Vice Chair Daniel Davis for "not helping reach out to the black community".
- Chairman Starnes has been working "behind the scenes" and outside of sunshine and transparency, by her own admission.
- Chairman Starnes has consistently ignored and "worked around" both Vice Chairs and other officers failing to include them in key decision making
- Chairman Starnes has spent money from the treasury without informing or seeking consent of the Executive Committee
- Chairman Starnes has refused to provide the EC with a complete list of her committee appointments after repeated requests
- Chairman Starnes has misrepresented the Party on multiple occasions in 2 press releases and also in a letter to Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper. An offer to host a town hall meeting was falsely broadcast saying that she had DCRP-EC approval to extend the offer which she did not. http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/08/17/civil-war-in-the-davidson-county-gop/
- Chairman Starnes has violated the bylaws of the TN Republican Party by openly supporting a non-Republican Candidate. Even though I agree with her specific intentions, it was improper for her as an officer and a clear violation of the Party rules. http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/10/20/davidson-county-republican-party-endorses-non-republican/
- Chairman Starnes called 2nd Vice Chair Dan Davis "scary looking" to his face; this comment was not in jest.
- Chairman Starnes illegally called for a primary for the office of Davidson County Juvenile Court Clerk costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars without any debate, discussion, or even EC approval. http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/12/17/davidson-county-gop-asks-for-a-juvenile-court-clerk-primary/
- Chairman Starnes was involved in a fundraiser at the house of Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper. http://www.wintennessee.com/
Perhaps the above examples are how the Democrats operate their Party and may in fact be what Chairman Starnes is accustomed to. Interestingly enough another anonymous credible source informed me that allegedly Chairman Starnes "left the Democrat Party to join the Republican Party simply because her husband did not win the construction contract by Phil Bredeson for renovating the Governor's mansion" (it should be noted that Chairman Starnes had been appointed to positions by two Democrat Governors). However the Republican Party should hold itself to a higher standard than Democrat cronyism and by continuing to allow Chairman Starnes and those who behave in a similar manner to escape accountability, they are essentially forcing the Party to be likened to the Democrats.
I will not pursue the well-deserved legal action against many Party officers or even Chairman Starnes. I will also not challenge the outcome of the purge hearing even though it is illegitimate on its face. There are more productive endeavors for the cause of liberty that I will instead focus on that will yield both fruitful and tangible results. The DCRP county club sandbox social clique is currently irrelevant, inept, inconsequential, and insignificant due to Kathleen Starnes' (lack of) leadership.
Still firmly believing that the Republican Party is the only current political vehicle capable of returning our nation to that of limited-government Constitutionalism, my offer of reconciliation with the DCRP stands. However I do see it as unlikely that those members of the Party who voted against me will be able to get past their personal bias and unwillingness to hold their leaders accountable. It is imperative that we clean our own house and hold our leaders accountable, otherwise we will be labeled hypocrites when we attack the Democrats (and rightly so). We cannot allow our Party leadership to behave like liberal/Democrats and then criticize the liberal/Democrats for pursuing the same paths. I have offered and offered and offered to work together but Chairman Starnes and her ilk have yet to take me up on it. It should be noted however that I do not wish for my unpleasant experience to deter anyone from working within the Republican Party in an attempt to restore limited-government, although I certainly understand why they feel that it might.
It looks like the People got the old bait and switch trick. Apparently the newly elected Republican Senator Scott Brown is calling for national health care. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself....
"I voted for health care here.... we're past campaign mode and it's important for everyone to get some form of healthcare. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important.. there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed"
_________________________________________
Earlier Mr Brown told NBC's Today show he did not think the vote was a referendum on President Obama's first year in power.
And he denied he was intent on derailing the reforms.
"I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare," he said.
"I believe everybody should have healthcare, it's just a question of how we do it."
Last night I attended a hearing at the Nashville Metro Council where many residents of the county spoke either in favor or against the idea of building a government convention center. Those who are opposed to it seem to outnumber those who are proponents. A recent scientific poll suggests that 26% of voters support it, 50% of voters oppose it, but what is interesting is that 72% want to see it put on a ballot (referendum).
Unless attitudes drastically change between now and then- having the issue put on a ballot will result in a clear defeat. It was a shrewd move by opponents to suggest that this be put forth to the voters because they know that it is exceptionally unpopular for a myriad of reasons.
While holding a referendum is one of multiple methods to defeat this billion-dollar-boondoggle, that particular tactic should not pursued. We do NOT live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic. The only democratic aspect of our government is that our legislators and a few other officials are democratically elected (and yes Tennessee is a republic). The general population should not be given the option to vote for or against the convention center. As someone who is known for advocating freedom and liberty, these words originating from my blog might come as a shock. But the thoughts are indeed entirely congruent upon deeper reflection.
The building of the convention center will without any doubt infringe on people's rights and their property. Remember that rights and property are interchangeable because without property there are no rights. Each individual owns possessions. Each individual owns his or her own body. Each individual holds money. And many individuals own land. One's body, land, possessions, and money are indeed one's property. Without the ability to freely make decisions regarding the use of one's body, land, possessions, and money, one has no rights and thus is not free. The government will steal the land of those at the proposed site, and it will take the money of the tourists who travel there (if the tourists don't pay for it, the burden will fall upon the backs of residents - a likely scenario because taxation diminishes whatever is being taxed).
As a hypothetical, assume for the moment that a referendum were to unexpectedly turn out in favor of the convention center. Does that mean every resident in the county should accept it because the majority has voted for it? Does the will of the majority determine the burden for everyone? Can the voters vote to take property (money) from their neighbors? Positively NO!
Rights cannot be voted away by the will of the majority. If our neighbor's rights can be voted away by us, then that means we have no individual rights, only privileges granted to us by the will of the community. That of course is not only a logical fallacy, but a direct contradiction to both the rule of law and the very ideals our republic was founded upon. The difference between a democracy and a republic you might ask? Rights in a republic are not subject to a vote. A society can either vote away a person's rights and property, or it can't. If it can, then the majority wins and the minority loses, and individuals are not free.
While it's obvious that a referendum on this issue will most likely produce a result benefiting the People by allowing them to keep their land and their money (thus their rights), the very idea that we can vote on such issues is fundamentally contrary to individual liberty. What if there was a referendum to outlaw Christianity? Or Islam? Or what if there were a referendum that decided you could only give birth to 2 children in Davidson County because of school overcrowding? Although seemingly farfetched, there are other more realistic scenarios that might include voting on the wearing of a gun in downtown, or the ability to smoke a cigarette outside of your home. Just because the majority has a will does not mean it should be made into the law. If the entire community can vote on something such as the convention center, then what can't it vote on?
Referendums are dangerous instruments that trample individual rights more often than not. Even if the outcome might be in favor of liberty, referendums should not be used. Our Founders bequeathed us a republic, and not a democracy, for this very specific reason.
Preventing governmental atrocities, such as this looming billion-dollar-boondoggle that will trample our rights, tax our money, and take our land, is best done though the democratic process of elected representatives. The goal is to elect people who will guard our liberty, not take it. The goal is to elect people who will uphold the rule of law, not ignore it. The goal is to elect people who will adhere to the strict principles of limited government, not expand it. The goal is to elect people with integrity and principle, not spineless whores. That is the best way to avoid an out-of-control, tyrannical, and authoritarian government that embezzles our rights.
In conclusion it is pertinent to examine this famous but unattributed quote:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy"
Interestingly enough Chairman Steele echoed almost the exact same ideas that I have spoken about for the past few years. Yet many others in the Party leadership, especially in the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party, refuse to grasp these basic understandings about both the history and future direction of the Party. Standing up for principle and adherence to limited-government ideals have gone by the wayside and the nation has suffered as a result of the Republican Party's irresponsibility. It is good to see some top-down rhetoric finally making sense however given the Party's past history I still remain skeptical of the sincerity and the likelihood of action stemming from this rhetoric. That these ideas are being acknowledged and discussed by Party leadership is indeed a great step forward but the old adage of "actions speaking louder than words" will be what determines the outcome of my judgment...
Here are some selected quotes of Chairman Steele during the Phil Valentine interview:
- "at the end of the day if you cant stand with us on fundamental values that matter to us, smaller government, lower taxes... then why are you calling yourself a conservative, why are you calling yourself a Republican?"
- "we cannot begin to turn the elephant, to move back towards principles, without understanding how we got off the rail in the first place".
- "races [in NJ and VA] are being won in impressive fashion because the[y (candidates)] didn't compromise their principles and didn't try to be liked by the left in order to win an election that would ultimately their goals of undermine conservative leadership."
Phil Valentine: - "we should not be supporting Republicans who do not adhere to basic conservative principles" Michael Steele responded: - "Absolutely" Phil Valentine: - "It's not going to do any good to get Republicans in there just to have Republicans in name only if they're not going to be true Republicans because we're just going to end up with more of the same."
-Matt Collins Former Vice Chair Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party Vice Chair Republican Liberty Caucus of Tennessee County Coordinator Davidson County Campaign for Liberty Member America's Future Foundation Member Tennessee Liberty Alliance Member Liberty on the Rocks
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
County Coordinator
Local Coordinator
