Anderson Would Muzzle Electorate - And Response (2)

Thursday, February 13, 2014 - by David Tulis

Chattanooga city council’s homosexual member offers bluff talk to the election commission as it considers a resident petition for his recall. 

Chris Anderson, through an attorney, argues that the motives of Tennessee citizens who live in his district are corrupt and tainted, and that approval of their petition to recall him is illegal and unconstitutional.

The letter by attorney and judicial candidate Stuart James traces what he says are trends in jurisprudence that disallow “discriminatory” purposes in the electorate. Assuming he is right in his analysis, let’s see where the trajectory he traces might end. 

While African nations are taking steps to criminalize sodomy, Mr. Anderson is part of a U.S. effort to redefine marriage by erecting a homosexual scaffolding against its outer walls. His disputed Chattanooga ordinance establishes a “domestic partnership” that is unlawful in Tennessee and outside the legal authority of a municipal corporation. He wants to unseat marriage, which is given special status in law and its participants social benefits because of its cultural and societal power and usefulness. 

Mr. Anderson and his homosexual coterie yearn for the day in which a new paradigm reigns and “discrimination” in favor of marriage is either a tort, a civil offense or a crime.
The people of Mr. Anderson’s district are dissatisfied with his representation on the city council, effectively the board of directors of a for-profit corporation in the municipal category. Their reasons vary, according to press reports. He is unresponsive to residents. He does not represents neighborhood interests disturbed by crime. He is overly focused on a gay rights agenda of which he made nary a mention in his campaign. He is avowedly homosexual, and homosexuals defy marriage and God’s law. 

Weary of democratic government
Mr. Anderson wants the commission to believe that because of an ascendency of homosexual rights in American law, it is possible for commission members to condemn the petition as an “abuse of the recall process.” Mr. Anderson faults the petition for stating no motive for the recall. Then he faults the petitioners for having motives upon which  it would be illegal for the commission to act. 

“The amended petition *** is also improper form because it is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, the petition is a pretext for removing an officeholder for discriminatory purposes. The petition does not give any reason for removal.” 

Mr. Anderson, through his agent the attorney, complains that a petition is wrong-headed because elections are sufficient for his constituents. “If he is not doing a good job as the petition seemingly suggests[,] isn’t that what the regularly scheduled election is for? *** At the next election, if District 7 voters are unhappy with Councilman Anderson, they can vote him out of office just as they did with Mr. [Manny] Rico.” 

“Is this commission,” whines Mr. Anderson, “going to approve every petition filed for a recall just because an officeholder does a poor job in some voters’ minds? Is this commission going to approve petitions simply asking for a recall without specific reasoning?” He wants the panel to prejudge the public; he wants the agent to control the principal. “Is this commission going to approve a petition simply asking for a recall without a stated reason? If so, what are elections for and why can the will of the voters be so easily undone?”
Caretaker of the electorate, Mr. Anderson continues amplifying the point about the terrible burden voters face in having to go the polling precinct.

If the level of dissatisfaction with some voters causes them to ask for recall just because someone is doing a poor job, just how many recalls will this community have to face, and how many recalls with the voters have to endure? If the voters just want to have a question on the ballot asking voters to recall an official without  a reason, how many recalls will the citizens have to endure? 

He forgets throwing out politicians excites voters whereas regular elections are a bore. Behind the curtain in this argument is the idea that somehow recall elections are imposed top down. Rather, they are bottom-up. They bubble up from the people. They are more genuine than elections, which baffle the public because, whichever party they vote for, the government always gets in. 

Mr. Anderson’s pleading supposes that recalls are imposed on people by government; rather, they are imposed on government actors by the people. I get the feeling that Mr. Anderson is projecting a sort of political hypochondria upon the people, imagining an ailment where none exists.

The poison pill
Mr. Anderson’s letter pretends to have an interest in legitimate and illegimate (discriminatory) causes to not organize a recall. It purpose is to poison the public well of dissent by granting himself a high-minded pretext to ignore the entire lot of voters in his district. 

The recall petition, he grouses, “forces him to submit to a recall election ***simply because he is gay and for no other legitimate reason. The form of the petition strongly suggests an improper discriminatory motive.” He is being recalled “simply on *** sexual orientation” and urges the commission not to place “the state’s imprimatur on a recall that is motivated purely by discrimination against Mr. Anderson.” Allowing the petition, he says, validates “the true purpose” of the recall  (italics added). 

One distinction of first amendment jurisprudence is that federal courts are forbidden to take religious belief and to weigh and scrutinize content. 

If that belief is religious in nature, it is accorded protection. But Mr. Anderson insists that federal rulings require the election commission to dig into the content of voters’ grievances and to make distinctions as to legitimacy of belief. He requires the county election commission to weigh the content of religious and other opinion, to subject free Tennesseans to searching inquiry. 

Patronizing?
Mr. Anderson’s views of politics are like those of mainstream homosexuals. It is censorious. It touches on bigotry. It mocks anyone whose worldview has an intimacy with God. 

At least one signer of the petition, I am sure, worries about God’s hatred of homosexuality and thinks on His promises of forgiveness to those who repent; this one is to be shunned. Mr. Anderson would identify the ogres marshaling electoral hordes against him as being from this camp. 

The trajectory of his form of government is clear: Toward noble harassment of the commoner, a wheedling civil power pinching men's consciences for the good of all.

-- David Tulis is host of Nooganomics.com, a talk show on Copperhead 1240 AM that airs 1 to 3 p.m. weekdays and covers local economy and free markets. 


* * * 

Responding to: "While African nations are taking steps to criminalize sodomy"

The truth about those African nations taking steps to criminalize homosexuality, according to Mr. Tullis, is they have been heavily influenced by western evangelicals who've gone into many of those countries with big bucks paid to African government. Where gays are being beaten and even killed, and in some cases raped by their own family members to "make them straight." 

Maybe China would have been better for Africa after all? At least their goal was to rebuild the infrastructure the west and Europe has raped and ravished for centuries. China very much believe Africans are capable of running Africa and should be allowed to do just that. 

It's really a tragedy the way powerful nations often use religion around the world to justify brutal and inhumane acts. 

Brenda Manghane-Washington

* * *

Pardon me, Mrs. Brenda Manghane-Washington, but I didn't see where Mr. Tulis stated:
"according to Mr. Tullis, is they have been heavily influenced by western evangelicals who've gone into many of those countries with big bucks paid to African government. Where gays are being beaten and even killed, and in some cases raped by their own family members to "make them straight." "

And as far as your statement:
"Maybe China would have been better for Africa after all? At least their goal was to rebuild the infrastructure the west and Europe has raped and ravished for centuries. China very much believe Africans are capable of running Africa and should be allowed to do just that."

That is highly offensive considering that since the 1950s, since Chine invaded Tibet, a peaceful country. over a million peaceful Tibetans have been killed, and in fact, Chinese out-number Tibetans in their own country now. Also, they cannot practice their own religion, outlawed by the Chinese. If you lived in China now (and not in our great USA)... you couldn't even voice the opinion you just did.

And for my two cents, I don't care what Anderson is. If your sexuality defines you, you need a different definition, because as a citizen, many don't care what goes where. That is personal.

I don't care what you do. I only care where my money/tax dollars go.

Jen Freeland


Rep. John Deffenbaugh: Week 11 House Of Representatives Report

The Georgia General Assembly reconvened under the Gold Dome on Monday, March 20 for day 36 of the 2017 legislative session. Sine die is less than a week away, and the House had another busy week of reviewing legislation in committee hearings, voting on bills and resolutions on the House floor and giving final passage to several bills that will now be considered by Governor Deal. ... (click for more)

Roy Exum: ‘Ballooniac’ Fined $25K

The Calgary Stampede is one of the biggest events in Canada and every year it draws well over 1.5 million people to one of the most beautiful places in the world. It started in 1912 as a big rodeo event and today it lasts 10 straight days. A highlight is the chuck-wagon races, where $4 million of advertisements are sold on the wagon’s canvas covers and there are pancake breakfasts ... (click for more)

Robert Driver Jr. Shot At Bar Near Hamilton Place On Sunday Night

A man was shot at a bar near Hamilton Place Mall on Sunday night. At approximately  9:51 p.m.,  Chattanooga Police officers responded to the report of a person shot in the parking lot of Bar Louie located at 2100 Hamilton Place Blvd.   Responding officers located 34-year-old Robert Driver Jr. suffering from a gunshot wound. He was transported to a local ... (click for more)

1 Person Killed In 3-Car Accident In Dalton On Saturday

There was a fatal three-vehicle crash on the South Bypass in Dalton just south of Sawgrass Drive  on Saturday  at approximately  4:30 pm . The crash happened when the driver of a black Ford Mustang traveling southbound on the bypass for some reason left its lane of travel and crossed over the center line and hit a 2004 Chevy Silverado truck head on. ... (click for more)

Mocs Finish Third At Furman Intercollegiate

The Chattanooga Mocs men’s golf team finished tied for third at the Furman Intercollegiate. They did so behind senior Wes Gosselin’s runner-up performance.   Gosselin shot a career-best 10-under 206. It’s the eighth time a Moc has finished 10-under or better, the first since Stephan Jaeger’s school-record 203 (-13) winning the 2012 NCAA Bowling Green Regional   ... (click for more)

DecoTurf Tennis: Walton Edges Baylor Gilrls, 4-3 for A Division Title

Top-seeded Walton (Ga.) defeated No.2 Baylor, 4-3, in the finals of the Girls A Division Saturday. Highlighted by Liz Norman’s (Walton) 6-1, 6-0 triumph against Baylor’s Drew Haskins at No.1 singles, Walton also picked up wins from No.4 Samantha Buyckx and No.5 Grace Gaskins, plus the doubles point to secure the win. Walton won Decoturf in 2015 and lost to Baylor last ... (click for more)