There is, however, a bigger story here. After the tornados came through the area, strong storms continued. In this history-making event things were changed, not only from the impact from the storms on people’s lives but on a greater issue—will this happen again? Are these storms evidence of changing weather patterns, patterns bringing Chattanooga similar storms in the future?
These storms remind us of the nature’s power. No matter where you live, we need to be prepared for tornados like those hitting Chattanooga Tennessee. We need to think about permanent changes in our weather patterns, regardless of where we live. These tornados and other similar natural events (like the tsunami causing earthquake in Japan) may be permanent natural events we have to be prepared for in the future.
Our number 1 story of 2011 as it relates to this subject—the tornados in Chattanooga are evidence of permanent changes in weather patterns and natural events around us. We need to understand the power of nature and be prepared for what it can bring.
Read more on this at http://www.grassrootsamerica.us
Weston Wamp is a republican running for the United States House of Representatives in Tennessee’s Third District. He recently raised $250,000 becoming a contender for the seat. He raised the money in one fundraiser, setting a record for the district. He is running against incumbent Chuck Fleischmann.
Over the New Year the Chattanooga Times Free Press ran a story about Wamp sending a fundraising letter attacking Occupy Chattanooga. From a political standpoint the letter is designed to get the conservative base excited about his run for Congress. It is targeted to get primary votes—the primary winner in this district is likely to be the next person going to the United States House of Representatives.
Read more about this issue at http://www.grassrootsamerica.us
Actually, the lawsuit for defamation was recently filed. It was not filed in the last campaign, but was filed alleging that Chuck Fleischmann and Chip Saltzman defamed Smith's character in the last campaign. Mark Winslow really knows how to win an election for Smith, doesn't he?
Will Robin Smith run for Congress, again? If she does she is at a financial disadvantage, she has no money, and no fundraising machine. Additionally, Mark Winslow (Smith's former communication director) filed a lawsuit against Fleischmann for defamation of character during the last political campaign (all campaigns involve defamation of character, Smith knows this because she has done it). The circumstances do not add up to a viable candidate nor a candidate who can raise the money to win.
Based upon the current political circumstances, Smith is not a viable candidate and her reputation for slashing and burning others is growing. She is a professional at burning bridges and engaging in the politics of hate.
We better not say anything further or we may get sued...truth, however, is a defense.
The Democrats have a problem coming out of the starting gate with Professor Wilson, and it is best illustrated by this statement from the Professor:
"I am available to be a candidate if there is sufficient support within the Democratic Party," Wilson said according to the Free Press Article below.
Mr. Wilson statements makes his candidacy non committal. In order to win this race he needs to appear to be decisive, an alternative, a candidate with answers. When will he have that support he says he needs? When will he decide to be a candidate? How does he determine when he has sufficient support within the Democratic Party to run, does this mean if there is a contested primary he won't run? Too much indecision coming out of the starting get. Wilson must commit and never look back otherwise his candidacy is a non starter.
Answers, Professor, you need to be the candidate with answers. Commit to the candidacy, give us a platform, and provide answers to the issues facing us as a community. When you do this, Professor, you are a candidate.
Congress wonders why its approval rating are the lowest in history, it is all about perception. This article shows there may be two worlds, the Congressional world and the real world. Moreover, there is no proof that the bill proposed by Congressman Fleischmann will stimulate the economy, create jobs or help working people. The bill is subject to criticism by conservatives.
Fleischmann should support abolishing the current tax code and passing a entirely new tax system. Why patchwork the current broken system, trash it...
Andrae McGary wants to change the City Charter for future recalls. Where is he on the current recall? If he thinks a change is needed, he should intervene and give an opinion on what is wrong with the current law, and how it impacts the recall election. However, he is not in that fight because he has expressed an interest in running for Mayor in the recall election. The change in the charter would be good, but it would be better to stand up for the voters, the taxpayers, and the recall effort by asking that action be taken on the current petitions to determine their legality under the current law.
It would be a shame to have a recall election and then have the election "tossed out" because the petitions are illegal. Where are our elected representatives when it comes for standing up for the taxpayer?
The original post appears at www.facebook.com/grassrootschattanooga.
The issue is simple, are the petitions valid? There is a conflict in the law and a legitimate legal issue that must be answered. The recall initiated an appeal, and won without getting an answer to the substantive issues. If the recall is for the good of the voters and our community, we should act that way, in the voters best interests.
“Unfortunately, the president's policies have been a failure… He believes in the public sector: I believe the private sector.” Representative Chuck Fleischmann, Republican Tennessee.
Unfortunately for Mr. Fleischmann he is off the mark again. Here are five reasons why:
This is the same broken republican message we have heard since Reagan. Considering the republican record voters cannot take heart in the political statement that any elected official believes in the private sector. Actions speak louder than words.
Some of our greatest moments as a republic have been when the private sector cooperates with the public sector to do great things. Government serves a valuable service when limited, controlled, and properly managed. Take for example our highway system; it is one of the greatest in the world. We employ private contractors to build public roads.
Fleischmann is towing the party line, doing what the Speaker wants him to do. He has to thank the speaker for the $200,000 the Speaker raised for his campaign. Fleischmann needs to step away from the shadow of the speaker and start coming up with his own, original, ideas.
The issue is not the public sector; the issue is not the President. The President’s policies are not the true failure; the Congress’s policies are a true failure due to gridlock and partisan divide. Congress is at its lowest approval in American history. What is Fleischmann going to do about it? Mr. Fleischmann, just take a look at the abject failure of the "Super Committee."
Therefore, nothing is getting done because Congress will not act in a meaningful manner due to the “its my way or the highway mentality.” The greatest moments in politics are when conservatives, liberals and moderates join together to reach common ground for the public good. It is the responsibility of every elected official to know when to stand your ground and to know when to compromise. Washington lacks this judgment, from both sides of the aisle.
On the one side you have a recall group pushing for the recall, regardless of the cost, regardless of the consequences. On the other side, you have a mayor dug in against the recall willing to take the entire process back to court to stop election from happening. Caught in the middle, the voters & the tax payers.
At the heart of all of this are the recall petitions. The central question is whether the petitions meet the requirements of the law? The recall group does not appear interested in that answer, it is pushing forward after a technical win on appeal. The recall effort is pushing forward with a recall in August of 2012, an election that may be subject to legal challenges, an election that is void if the petitions are illegal. Moroever, one of the recall leaders himself, Jim Folkner, is considering a run for Mayor.
Mayor Littlefield promises a continued legal challenge before the August 2012 recall election. The recall group promises to push forward with the recall election regardless of the Mayor's legal challenenge. The recall effort moves forward knowing that a new election for mayor will occur in April of 2013. The recall effort moves forward knowing the August 2012 election may be subject to legal challenge with a potential that the recall may be declared invalid. Moreover, if a recall happens in August 2012 there is no guarantee of no runoff, so you have two 2012 elections. Then, wait...there will be an election in 2013 with the potential of another runoff. Therefore, there is a potential of four elections for Mayor. Caught in the middle are the voters and the taxpayers.
Does anyone care about voter fatique? Does anyone care about the cost to the taxpayer, to the voter? Does anyone care about Chattanooga's image, and how this makes the city look?
If the petitions are invalid, then the recall is invalid. If the petitions are invalid and the recall election occurs, the recall election is invalid.
The Court of Appeals ruled the lower court had no jurisdiction but never ruled on the validity of the petitions-the recall effort won on a technicality without getting the legal questions answered. Therefore, why doesn't the recall effort want to know if the petitions are valid under the law? Why doesnt the recall effort want answers before moving forward with the election? Is it because Mr Folkner is placing his political interests ahead of those of the voter?
Regardless of your position, there is only one thing that is for certain--with the current situation surrounding the recall election no one seems to care that the voters and the taxpayers are caught in the middle.
A recall is a valid tool use to remove elected representatives from office for committing acts of mis or malfeasance. Under the current circumstances this process is being discredited due to an apparent blind mission for political gain.
...and the voters and the taxpayers are caught in the middle.