California Refugee and Direct Marketing Expert Craig Huey Weighs in on Davidson County’s Congressional Election Strategies

California Refugee and Direct Marketing Expert Craig Huey Weighs in on Davidson County’s Congressional Election Strategies

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed creator of the Huey Report and direct mail expert, Craig Huey, in-studio to discuss possible campaign tactics that Odessa Kelly may use in the fight for Davidson County’s congressional seat.

Leahy: Our guest in studio, our good friend Craig Huey. So let’s talk about this congressional election in Davidson County. There is a primary challenge. Odessa Kelly, I guess the Justice Democrats are trying to make her the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of Nashville. Jim Cooper, I want to look at Jim Cooper’s electoral history.

He’s a Harvard grad. He’s about in his mid-sixties. He’s represented this district in Congress since 2002. He won in 2002. He beat Robert Duvall, who has been the chairman of the Davidson County GOP, 63.33 percent. In 2004 he had 69 percent. In 2006 he had 69 percent, 65 percent in 2008. In 2010, his closest challenge ever in the general election. That was the Tea Party year.

Huey: That was.

Leahy: He got 57 percent to David Halls 32 percent. Okay, so that tells you something right there. In all of these cases, the Republican was far outspent. Now, what’s interesting if you look at Cooper’s vulnerability in the primary last time, Keeda Haynes challenged him and lost 57 percent to 40 percent in the primary. Now, Keeda was underfinanced compared to him.

And I think she had sort of an unusual background. I think she had several run-ins with the law as a younger person, became a public defender. I think that’s the case. We’ll double-check on that. So now she has not been selected by the Justice Democrats to run. So they picked Odessa Kelly. We think she is likely to get quite a lot of money from around the country. And we think she’s got a good chance of beating them in the primary.

Huey: I think she can because she knows how to organize and mobilize. And that’s the key. I’m hoping a really great candidate steps forward to run against Cooper or against Odessa Kelly whoever wins that race.

Huey: On the Republican side.

Leahy: On the Republican side. And you’ve got some suggestions for how they could win. Now, remember, I would think that an underfinanced Republican, the high watermark, lost 57-42 in the general.

Huey: Yes.

Leahy: But you think it’s possible that either running against Jim Cooper or Odessa Kelly in the general of 2022, a Republican could win if a, they start now and b they start thinking in terms of digital marketing. Tell us what would work.

Huey: Sure. So, Michael, 2022 is going to be a great year because you have people upset and angry about what’s happening in Washington, and they want to change it. And just like with the Tea Party, I think this will be a Tea Party on steroids, the reaction. And the key to this is that the candidate running understands they have to raise the money. If they don’t have the money, they have to raise the money. They can’t run just because they have better ideas.

Leahy: What! Let me just stop for a moment. A lot of our friends think I’ve got the answer. A lot of our conservatives. A lot of our Tea Party friends.

Huey: I see it all the time.

Leahy: I’ve got the answers. I’ll just go out and say those answers, and people will realize just how correct my answers are.

Huey: It doesn’t work.

Leahy: It doesn’t work?

Huey: It does not work. You’ve got to communicate and you have to mobilize.

Leahy: Now I’m disappointed. (Chuckles)

Huey: Oh, I’m sorry, but it’s the reality. But here’s the good part, Michael. Even in a Democratic district that has that advanced registration and a built-in Democratic vote, a Republican challenger can come in there and upset that election in 2022. But they have to be able to raise the money.

Leahy: How much money are we talking?

Huey: I would try to raise about four million.

Leahy: Four million? Have you ever run for Congress?

Huey: I have.

Leahy: Back in 2012? Was it 2012?

Huey: 2011 in a special election. And I ran in a district, that was 22 percent higher percentage of Democrats. And I shocked everybody with no name recognition. I ran against the mayor of the largest city. I ran against the California Secretary of state. I ran against the most powerful county of Los Angeles, a City of Los Angeles City Councilperson. I beat these people in the primary, which shocked the nation.

Leahy: So you won the primary?

Huey: I won the primary. I shouldn’t have. I won the primary.

Leahy: Yes, you should of. (Huey chuckles) Because you use your marketing techniques.

Huey: Yes, I’ll tell you about that. So, Michael, what happened then was that Obama brought in his Organizing for America and used my campaign as his test campaign of using data and digital marketing to tie it to get out the vote. And so I saw what was happening and he was out-marketing me. And it was unbelievable what he had developed.

I needed to switch 2,000 votes, and I would have won that race. I was outspent eight to one. And I could have won it. But here’s what needs to be done and what my opponent in that race and what Odessa will be doing. They will be marketing by developing data. They will have petitions. They will have petitions to parents about schools. They will have petitions about better roads.

They will have petitions about some issue in Washington, D.C. identifying their voters. They will create digital ads where once somebody signs a petition or goes to our website, the ad will follow them around wherever they go, whether they’re on Facebook or Google. And so there will be a campaign to be able to market and build that database.

Leahy: Why are they building the database?

Huey: They’re building it so that they can then communicate with those people that they have on the database to get them to the poll. It’s get out the vote. They make sure that they have identified enough voters to overwhelm Cooper. And that’s what she’s going to do. And not only that, she’s going to use techniques like geo-fencing. She’s going to geo-fence every church. Anybody who goes to a church on Sunday, she collects the data to send them a video or a Facebook ad. That’s just one of the techniques. And are the Republicans going to do this?

Leahy: So let’s step back. First, you need a candidate. Second, he needs to raise he or she needs to raise four million dollars. Okay, then what do they need to do then? This is for the Republican to win the general election against either Jim Cooper or Odessa Kelly.

Huey: I recommend they don’t hire a Republican consultant. (Laughs)

Leahy: Now, first, you said something very important. I think that’s good. And why should they not hire Republican consultants?

Huey: Because they’re marketing as if it was 20 years ago.

Leahy: They’re doing TV ads.

Huey: They waste money on TV ads. They don’t understand how to get out the vote or even training. Michael, what Odessa will do is she’ll have somebody coming to the door saying, hey, I see on this petition, you believe in better education. Well, so does Odessa. Now, I want to make sure that you go to the poll on Tuesday. Can I drive you to the poll? Oh, I can’t drive you to the poll? Well, maybe what I can do is come back. I’ll come back after Tuesday. I’ll knock on your door, and I’ll say, how did it go at the poll? It increases turnout by 10 percent. These are the tactics that these people use and we have to use too.

Leahy: Well they are clever. And, by the way, Odessa Kelly, we’re just telling the world your campaign strategy here based on experience. You’re welcome to come in and tell us if we’ve got it wrong. (Huey chuckles)

Listen to the third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

America’s Sheriff AJ ‘Andy’ Louderback Weighs in on Dangers of Gutted Trump Policies Creating Surge at Southern Border

America’s Sheriff AJ ‘Andy’ Louderback Weighs in on Dangers of Gutted Trump Policies Creating Surge at Southern Border

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Jackson County, Texas Sheriff, AJ ‘Andy’ Louderback to the newsmakers line to weigh in on the crisis at the nations southern border and Biden’s unraveling of Trump policies.

Leahy: We are joined on our newsmaker line now by our friend, Sheriff AJ Louderback from Jackson County, Texas. Welcome, Sheriff Louderback.

Louderback: Good morning. Good morning.

Leahy: You and I met back, I think, a year and a half ago when you were in Washington, D.C., with a group of folks that were part of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. And right then you talked about the problems on the border. Since the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 21st, what’s happened to Jackson County? You’re about halfway between Corpus Christi and Houston. What have you seen that’s different in the past two months?

Louderback: I guess the best place to start is with these policies that have Joe Biden’s signature on them. We went from a very stable border to mass chaos here in Texas. So in the interior of Texas, where ICE has been completely nullified from their activities to the point where they have to even call a supervisor and have written express authorization to do almost anything.

We’re feeling the effects here as all Texas towns and towns throughout the United States are where we have people coming through again. We have illegal aliens showing up on people’s door steps from bailouts. We’re having our trucks stolen here in this area. We live geographically on the major corridor into Houston, Texas. And so it’s the number one human trafficking corridor and huge narcotics trafficking hub of Houston as they spread out to the rest of the United States. So it’s again: where to start, Michael?

It’s the same thing over except this one is much more pronounced and much stronger. ICE and CBP have both been completely taken out of the picture. I used the term gutted back in the Obama administration, and I don’t have a better word today other than they’ve done a much more thorough job of nullifying the federal law about this through policies and executive orders.

Leahy: Would you say the big administration is violating our immigration law?

Louderback: Clearly. They’re completing now through the NGO programs the final leg of the journey into the United States that the cartels used to do, and the cartels are still doing it. But the U.S. government is essentially complicit in that or however, you want to call it. But in McAllen, Texas, which have numerous friends on border patrol and ICE and so forth, and I get the video he sent to me and long been a proponent of a secure border.

I just think that that’s essential to having a country. And obviously, I’m in disagreement with the administration where we have no borders. I call it a zero border today. And we feel the effects here as every state will feel the effects as more and more come in and are transported into the cities and counties across our nation.

Leahy: If the federal government is going to not enforce immigration law, what role can the state government, what role can county governments, and county sheriffs like you, what can you do to stop that?

Louderback: It’s a fascinating area. That’s the one I’ve explored extensively over the years because, obviously our founding fathers I consider much about this as far as a border state and states rights. That’s exactly what the governor can do in the state of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. So I know it’s being explored extensively.

I’ve seen some things out of our Texas governor here, Greg Abbott, and expecting some more. Our Texas AG here has lashed back with lawsuits on the deportation. And we were able to get a 100-day pause on that or so. It appears right now that we don’t have a lot of options or options that are actually being exercised. So waiting on that and exploring that and urging states to pay back in this issue as we become invaded here over and over with a steady stream of people.

Leahy: Sheriff Louderback, I saw that here is an idea from somebody who doesn’t live on the border, but who looks at what states can and cannot do. I saw that Governor Abbott deployed about 500 Texan National Guardsman to be on the border. Was that effective? Is there an opportunity to do more of that kind of thing or not?

Louderback: Well, Michael, I think it has value. Is it the most effective? I’m not sure. I’m glad that something’s being done. And I’m sure the extra help is certainly needed down there. They need resources and those guys are already exhausted. They’re demoralized to the point where imagine you went from a secure and stable border to a policy that completely destroys everything you’ve worked for, for the last two years with policies, no matter if anybody liked them.

The border hadn’t been that stable. And I like that word because the border is a unique area between any country. And it was very stable. We didn’t have any problems. It was more stable and had been in probably 50 years as far as the policies that were in place by the Trump administration. The military was down there and he sent extra troopers down there under Operation Loan Star.

The state lacks the ability currently to be able to turn back the tide and say, look, go back into Mexico and we’re going to restore some type of order on legal immigration coming into this country. Border security under its basic concept would be you were able to do that exactly the way we’ve been doing it in the last two years. So instead, we have mass chaos.

Leahy: If the President of the United States does not enforce existing administration in immigration law, in your opinion, is that an impeachable offense?

Louderback: Well, for me, certainly. I’m a strong advocate for a secure border, and I think you should be able here in the United States to control who comes into your country and who doesn’t? Just the very concept of that is just very basic to me. Very fundamental. As far as being a country obviously, there are people who disagree with that. We shall feel the effects of this. We already are.

The cartel grows ever stronger and enriched by these policies to the point where I don’t think most Americans understand the amount of money that the cartels have and their business model which is one of the most efficient in the world. And I don’t think most Americans understand exactly the types of money and how they profit from this policy here. So we actually have a war going on now on both sides because there is so much money involved. The cartels will actually even fight each other.

They’ll fight law enforcement. They’ll fight Mexican law enforcement. They sent two over here the other day to kill a law enforcement officer in the United States around the Yuma-Cochise County Arizona area. One was captured. I’m not sure if they capture the other one yet, but there are explicit orders from the cartel to take out at least one U.S. police officer.

Leahy: Was the U.S. police officer hurt in that?

Louderback: No. One was intercepted. But intelligence was very clear on it as to what was going on. So it resulted in a four-day search or so. Again, this is in Arizona from the sheriffs there that relayed this to Texas authorities that certain areas where the cartel gets upset with things and then they’re certainly able to put hits out on just about anybody they want.

Leahy: Sheriff Louderback of Jackson County, Texas. Please come back in about a month and tell us if it’s gotten better or worse. Thanks for joining us this morning.

Louderback: That’s good. Thank you, Sir.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

Author and Co-Creator of the Theology Home Project, Carrie Gress Talks About the Importance of Homemaking and It’s Devaluation by Radical Feminism

Author and Co-Creator of the Theology Home Project, Carrie Gress Talks About the Importance of Homemaking and It’s Devaluation by Radical Feminism

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed author of the Anti-Mary Exposed and co-creator of the Theology of Home project to discuss the importance of homemaking as a foretaste of heaven and its destruction by way of the radical feminist movement.

Leahy: We are delighted to welcome to our microphones on our newsmaker line a new friend, Carry Gress, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and author of a new book and a new project. The book on the Theology of Home. They’re actually two books and the Theology of Home II. Welcome, Carrie Gress.

Gress: Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for having me on.

Leahy: So you have a PhD from Catholic University. You’ve co-authored a book with a great Catholic theologian George Weigel. Did I pronounce that right?

Gress: W-E-I-G-E-L. Weigel.

Leahy: Perhaps the leading Catholic theologian of the 21st century it seems to me. But he’s a great guy from what I can tell.

Gress: He is a great guy. He’s definitely one of the best known out there, that’s for sure. It was a real privilege to write a book with him.

Leahy: So talk to us about the Theology of Home project, just announced a couple of days ago by the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Basically, we’ll focus, it says on the website, on equipping, biblically Orthodox Americans in living out the faith under the challenging new circumstances of 21st century America. What is the main point of this project, Carrie?

Gress: Well, the main point is really to look at the importance of the home. And I think this is something that we can all agree has really been decimated over the last five decades, largely because of radical feminism and just kind of the message in the air that the home doesn’t matter and that women are going to be fulfilled outside the home and not inside the home.

But we also have this amazing trend going on where the home is now incredibly popular as far as renovating them and all these home projects like knitting and cooking and things like that. So what we really want to do is just connect the dots and say these things are important and popular, not just because of the lockdowns. They were certainly making a comeback before that.

But because people recognize that there’s something important about the home and that it is a sanctuary. It’s meant to be that and it’s meant to be the place where we’re really known and nourished and loved. And it can’t be done without a homemaker. A home doesn’t make itself. My co-author Noelle Mering and I just really wanted to look at that idea and see how important this is in terms of public policy and law and all of these things, instead of it just being an invisible reality that all of us take for granted.

Leahy: Isn’t perhaps the most important element of it in the formation of the character of young children?

Gress: Oh, absolutely. I think that is so much of it. I think if you look at some of the societal ills that we have today, so many of them go back to this reality that children just haven’t been well-formed and haven’t been loved in a way that they need to be loved. And we’re really paying the price for it as a culture right now.

Leahy: From a public policy point of view, what kind of things would come out of the Theology of Home project?

Gress: Well, it’s going to be interesting to see, because nothing’s really been done like it at this point. Much of it will be writing op-eds and things like that that Noelle and I have been doing already in both Catholic and secular and Protestant outlets. But I think that we also will look at just how do we help inform people and our influencers on the Hill through workshops and things like that?

This is what typically think tanks have done. But we also like to extend it larger. We have an online magazine called Theologyofhome.com. We’d love to grow that into something that has a much further reach just to help women in particular know that it’s okay that we have these desires of the heart to have a beautiful home. It’s meant to be that way. Our home is really supposed to be a foretaste of heaven. So it’s important that we recognize that.

Leahy: I have never heard that. Carrie, you caught my attention when you said the home is supposed to be a foretaste of heaven. I never heard that. Where does that come from?

Gress: Well, it comes from our first book, Theology of Home: Finding the Eternal in Every Day. We really developed a mini theology related to that. But I think that what we call the domestic church really is meant to be where we can see the things that are in the home are also in the church. But we can also see them in heaven.

Things like light, nourishment, hospitality, safety, and comfort. All of these things are transcendentals that are not just meant to be at the home, but we see them again in these different ways, supernaturally. So that’s really the idea. But we also know well, what we can imagine well what hell would be like in our homes too.

Leahy: Crom Carmichael is our all-star panelist here in studio. He has a question for you.

Carmichael: Carrie, you mentioned that the radical feminists have done much to destroy the home. When you say home, I’m assuming that family is synonymous with the word home.

Gress: Oh, absolutely.

Carmichael: So it’s not just a physical home, it’s a family. And my sense of it is that radical feminism was not so much, it may have started with a goal to help women in the workplace, but it grew to be anti-family. Go ahead, please.

Gress: Well, I would just say I’ve actually written a whole book on the topic looking at the early second wave of feminism, and I actually think the roots were very very Marxist. I don’t think that the intention was as pure as that. And so I think that there has been an effort to destroy the family, but part of that has been destroying the actual material aspect of our homes.

Taking the woman out of the home. So the two are really synonymous. I think that you need both to really build up a family well. You can’t do that and sort of abstractly. So I think it’s important to really recognize the actual home itself and the importance of that material element.

Carmichael: Yes. Well, the family and the home are on kind of one side of the political divide. And then the destruction of the family and the state are on the other. Because you can’t really empower the state as much as the left would like to without destroying the importance of the family.

Gress: Right. But I think that radical feminism started out with things like saying how awful it is to be a homemaker. That you have to be mentally ill, to be a homemaker, that children don’t need a homemaker, that they just raise themselves. These are the things that have been told to us for 50 years. And, of course, destroying the patriarchy as part of that. These are very old talking points that we’re still hearing 50 years later. So, yeah, I think it’s part and parcel. I think both of the things go together.

Carmichael: Right. But I guess what I’m asking you is and I think you and I are agreeing that feminism was really designed, as you say, as a Marxist tool to destroy the family rather than a tool to lift up women. In other words, they were flying under a false flag.

Gress: Absolutely. I think that is the case and I go into that in detail in my book called Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity, where there are absolutely both Marxist elements as well as strong elements of the occult that we’re very much aimed at destroying the family.

Carmichael: Now, your organization, how do you communicate with people who are interested in your point of view? Are you being attacked on social media? Are you being canceled on social media? Are you being allowed to communicate or is Big Tech throttling you also?

Gress: Well, Big Tech came after my book, The Anti-Mary Exposed right after the inauguration actually. And both Facebook and Instagram banned it from their marketplaces. So that’s been kind of an ongoing story that’s been happening. But the actual Theology of Home books have not been touched largely because they’re very unpolemical.

We designed them to be very positive and for people to really find something or anybody to find something in them that would be edifying to them. So that we haven’t been attacked yet. And our Theologyofhome.com website has also been untouched. But of course, we have a subscriber list. We know that probably down the road we will end up just having to be a newsletter that we send out to people. So we really like to build it up that way just so we can stay in touch with people. The biggest piece has certainly been the censorship that I’ve experienced with my specific book.

Leahy: Carrie Gress, a fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center and co-author of books about the Theology of Home. Now, the Theology of Home projects. You can go to Theologyofhome.com to learn more. Carrie, thanks so much for joining us. And please, come back.

Gress: Thank you. I love it. Thanks so much.

Leahy: All right, now that was interesting.

Carmichael: That was very interesting. I really enjoyed that.

Leahy: Yeah, well, we try to keep it interesting here.

Carmichael: Well, she’s a tinker.

Listen to the full third hour here:


– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Making a Home” by Theology of Home.

 

 

 

 

Patrice Onwuka of IWF Talks Biden Press Conference Softballs and the Recent Signing of Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021

Patrice Onwuka of IWF Talks Biden Press Conference Softballs and the Recent Signing of Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed the Independent Women’s Forum Senior Policy Analyst Patrice Onwuka to the newsmakers line to give her take on Joe Biden’s recent press conference and Georgia’s recent passing of the Election Integrity Act of 2021.

Leahy: We are joined by our good friend on newsmaker line Patrice Onwuka, who is the director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at the Independent Women’s Forum. Patrice, we’re getting to be good friends. Thanks for coming back.

Onwuka: Absolutely. Good morning, Michael.

Leahy: Well, big news yesterday. Did you see a somnambulant occupant of the White House holding a press appearance yesterday?

Onwuka: I did. I watched the entire thing.

Leahy: You did! Somebody had to do that. (Onwuka chuckles) Somebody had to sit through the entire thing. How did you make it through that debacle?

Onwuka: I was looking for the gotchas, and there were plenty of them. I was looking to see how many of the questions would be softballs. Or let’s get you on the record as supporting a really far-left agenda. And we got those two. And I wasn’t disappointed. Now, I will say I was also doing work and watching babies. The babies probably helped.

Leahy: Well, you were able to make it through because your mind was otherwise occupied because Joe Biden’s mind was occupied with that notebook right in front of him, apparently. And also occupied with trying to avoid selecting a reporter who might actually ask something other than a softball question.

Onwuka: I do hear that Fox News’s Peter Doocy unfortunately he was not given the chance to ask a question, and he was the only one who would actually ask serious questions on the campaign trail. So maybe there’s a reason why there was just not enough time for him.

Leahy: See, if I’m Peter Doocy. I’m thinking, am I just a prop here? Do they just put me in this room with a mask looking dopey just so that they can say, yeah, there was a Fox News guy there. Going into that if you’re Peter Doocy, what do you think the odds are that the president is actually going to call you to ask a real question?

Onwuka: Oh, there is probably like a 1 percent likelihood. But he’s always on his game, and he’s always ready and that’s what I appreciated. He actually would ask. He put his own colleagues on glass by asking the questions that they were not willing to. So kudos to him for just showing up and being ready at all times.

Leahy: Yeah, I like Peter. He was here in Nashville in 2018 when Marsha Blackburn had a press conference. He did a really good job. He’s relatively young. Of course, he’s Steve Doocy’s son. You’ve been on Fox and Friends. I think I haven’t gone in the past. Yeah, a few times this year.

Leahy: Well, of course, I was on that show once, a long time ago, and Steve Doocy interviewed me. Very nice guy. Very nice guy. He comes at it from the weather. He was a weather guy for a long time, I think. But he’s very affable. And so his son, Peter, has gone into the hard news. And I agree with you. He’s still in his 20s I think.

But he’s probably the best White House reporter there is at the moment. Which shows you that the rest of them, they are not exactly throwing hardballs and throwing fastballs. In fact, they were the softest of the softball. Did you see that one reporter from PBS? Her intros of the question? Of course, you’re the kindest, most delightfully dignified person ever in the history of the world. Tell us why you are that? Did you see that one?

Onwuka: (Chuckles) Yes, yes. I will say that there were a couple of others at the harping on the filibuster. Certainly, it’s racist. It has groups and Jim Crow laws. If you agree with that, then don’t you support getting rid of it? That I think was the most nauseating of the questions because the reporters obviously were advancing an agenda rather than asking a question and letting his answer be the answer.

Leahy: I’m glad you brought that up because, of course, the Jim Crow laws were passed in the 1880s, 1890s in the South by the Democratic Party. The filibuster has been around the Senate since 1806. They got their history wrong. I know that’s a shock to you.

Onwuka: Exactly. Exactly.

Leahy: So if you were in that press conference, what kind of questions would you ask have asked the current occupant of 600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Onwuka: I would ask about China and our relationship with China. Has his view changed on whether they are just an adversary or just kind of a bad guy? What is the relationship between him and the head of China looks like? Is he serious about holding them accountable for abuses? I would absolutely also ask about the one-point-nine trillion-dollar spending bill.

And the proposed $3 trillion more of infrastructure spending he wants to enact. Where is the money coming from? Is he committed to ensuring that middle-class families are not going to be hit and clarifying what he means by what his administration means by $200,000 or more paying for the next round of big government spending? I would have asked questions like that.

Leahy: They’re not going to invite you. (Laughter) Those are actually real questions Patrice.

Onwuka: I know. I know.

Leahy: One word I didn’t hear there. Did anybody ask a question about all the human rights abuses of the Communist Chinese Party of the Uyghurs? Did you hear that question asked?

Onwuka: I did not hear Uyghurs. He mentioned briefly human rights, and he talked about the great relationship they had talking for two hours, and people were surprised. That does not give me a vote of confidence that he’s willing to hold China accountable. And we obviously know that Hunter Biden is hovering over this entire conversation about China. It is what it is.

Leahy: And the other news, but this is a little bit out of the area that you follow, but I’ll just see if you’ll take a look at this. I’m mostly interested in the competing narratives about this particular bill. Did you see yesterday in Georgia? And we’re talking about election integrity laws. An election integrity law that is designed to prohibit private funding of election administration that limits the use of drop boxes and puts more constraints on absentee ballot voter verification. It’s called the Election Integrity Act of 2021. Yesterday passes the Georgia House, the Georgia State Senate, and signed by the governor, all in just three or four hours. Did you see that? What was your take on that?

Onwuka: Yes. I caught it. Really interesting. I think number one, this is going to be the start of other similar state efforts to shore up their electoral processes, and obviously, particularly in red states, not blue ones. Number two, I think it sends a message that Georgia wants to really ensure that voters stick to a really defined time frame on voting. And number three, it’s going to be the battle of who is able to spin this in the best way. Obviously, the left is spinning this as voter suppression.

The right is spinning it as voter integrity. And I think individual voters in the state, but also nationwide, they’re going to have to figure out where they fall on that spectrum. I think there is nothing wrong with ensuring of states setting up their own rules about how their elections are run and the time frames within which voters can vote. You do have to be careful that some things don’t unfortunately limit people’s access to voting. But I also support voter ID. And ensuring that just like we have to present an ID to buy alcohol, why can’t we people present an ID to vote? So it’s going to be interesting. And this is just the start.

Leahy: I think you’re right. And what I find interesting about it is, of course, the states are looking at this. Georgia did pass that law, which I thought was quite good. It wasn’t perfect, but it was much better than the current law. But you’ve got this whole it’s going to be Arizona on other red States. But then you’ve got, of course, at the national level HR1 which the Democrats call what was the For the People Act. Which Republicans call the Corrupt Politicians Act. It’s interesting about the framing. I’m so glad you brought that up. Did you read The New York Times the other day? They described the Georgia bill as voter suppression. Unbelievable.

Onwuka: That’s exactly the language you’re going to hear. And it’s not surprising. I mean, I do have friends who live in Georgia who will tell me, hey, Patrice, you do understand that there are lots of Georgia voters who go to church, particularly Black churches, and they get together on Sundays, and they go out and they go and vote afterward. And so efforts like this could have an impact on the ability of groups to organize voters together.

I’m not going to weigh in on the specifics and things like that. But I do think there is nothing wrong in a state determining for itself what the rules are and what they’re going to allow. And you’ve got to fight back against the bundling of both the large collection of votes and ballots. You don’t know what’s going to happen there. It opens the door for potential fraud. And I think that’s what we need to be looking at.

Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Patrice Onwuka” by Independent Women’s Forum. 

 

 

 

 

Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act: Attorney Jim Roberts Comes Up with More Petitions Than Legally Needed, Metro Legal Moves Goalpost

Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act: Attorney Jim Roberts Comes Up with More Petitions Than Legally Needed, Metro Legal Moves Goalpost

 

Live from Music Row Friday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Nashville attorney Jim Roberts to the newsmakers line to discuss his receipt of more than enough signed petitions to put the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act on the ballot yet informs of Metro Legals attempts to change the rules.

Leahy: We are joined on our newspaper line by the triumphant Jim Roberts. Good morning, Jim.

Roberts: Good morning, sir. How are you doing today?

Leahy: So tell us what you did yesterday afternoon.

Roberts: Well, we were very excited. Yesterday we went down to the courthouse and handed over to the Metro Clerk more than sufficient signatures to place the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act on the ballot. And they were waiting for us, even though we didn’t tell them we were coming, they knew we were coming. And they already had the forms ready. And it was just a wonderful feeling to unload those thousands and thousands and thousands of petitions with the signatures on them.

Leahy: I saw the picture. You had a lot of them. Now the number that you submitted was a little over 14,000. Is that correct?

Roberts: That’s right. 14,000 valid signatures.

Leahy: Now, there’s a little dispute coming on what the right number is. Tell us what your interpretation of the Metro charter is as to what the number needs to be.

Roberts: Certainly. There was a little confusion first, because, quite honestly, the Election Commission was putting out some incorrect information. And it’s really all based on how many people voted in the last general election. And that term general election is defined as the last Metro election.

Leahy: And let me just pause here for a moment. When people use the term general election, the general election for state and federal offices was held in November 2020.

Roberts: That’s right.

Leahy: But the general election for Metro Nashville County government offices was at the August of 2019 election?

Roberts: No, it was the August of 2020 election.

Leahy: And the charter says you need 10 percent. And so what is 10 percent of the August 2020 general election?

Roberts: About 11,500 signatures.

Leahy: And you turned in 14,000.

Roberts: That’s right.

Leahy: So game over right? If they get approved by the Metro clerks, you should be on the ballot except your counterpart accept. And now we have the rest of the story. (Roberts chuckles) Jeff Roberts, no relation to you. Jim Roberts is the election administrator for Davidson County. He says no. He says when they say general election, they mean the November 2020 general election for federal and state offices. And 10 percent of that number is 32,000. He said in an article in The Tennesseean where he said he’s going to challenge you. What happens next?

Roberts: Well, what’s going to happen is that we’re actually going to fail a lawsuit Monday. I must admit I didn’t expect this sort of legal shenanigans that we had last time. The unbelievable dishonesty of the Metropolitan government in the department of law. I was caught off guard by that. We’re not really going to put up with that nonsense.

The law is very clear. In fact, Metro argued in a very similar situation that it would have been the August election, not just two years ago when the Community Oversight Board referendum was on the ballot it was Metro that argued that the prior August selection was the right election and that Metro argued that the intervening federal election didn’t count.

That was Metro’s argument. And I expected them to be hypocrites and to change their position. But the law is completely clear. This case is less than two years old, and it says very clearly that the November federal and state election isn’t the election you count from. So Jeff is just wrong. And either he doesn’t know he’s wrong or he doesn’t care he’s wrong.

Carmichael: Are you going to file for a declaratory judgment on Monday?

Roberts: That is probably what we’ll do. If you remember last time that the Election Commission stalled and delayed. We found out that Metro legal was meeting illegally and secretly with the Election Commission to conspire against the voters. We’re not going to put up with that nonsense this time. My goal is to file for a declarative action and an injunction prohibiting Metro legal from engaging in any more unethical behavior. We’re going to make it very clear that this is serious. This is what the people want, and we’re not going to have a lot of illegal and unethical behavior by the Metropolitan government to try to stop it.

Carmichael: When you say this is what people want what you’re really saying is people want to have a right to have a say on their own tax rates. Now whether or not they want to have them or not. If this vote goes against the way that you would like it to, you’re still satisfied with that as a result, because the people have spoken. Is that accurate?

Roberts: Absolutely. And obviously, I hope they look for these six good things because they’re all good government amendments but I want to put it in the people’s hands. They have a right. This is what’s so dishonest about what Metro legal is doing. It is that they’re not just trying to say it’s a bad idea they’re trying to prevent and have been trying to prevent the people from voting on it. And when your government is telling you, you don’t get to vote on something that should bother everybody. And it bothers me a lot.

Leahy: So, Jim, the precedent you’re talking about, tell me if I’ve got it right. So the controversial Community Oversight Board, which was placed on the ballot because community groups gathered signatures that were more than 10 percent

Carmichael: Of the previous August.

Leahy: Previous August general election back in 2018. And they got it on like 1,500 signatures or something at 10,000. And I think the number was 8,500 or something like that. And the fraternal order of police filed a lawsuit that went through many, many cases and many iterations. And they said, no, that’s not enough. It needs to be the general election in the November election. Metro legal argued, no no no it has to be August in that. Do I have that right?

Roberts: That’s exactly right. That’s what they ordered. The phrase in the charter says proceeding general election. So in a sort of legal way, there was a dispute. What does proceeding general election mean? Well, one of the bills is very clear. In an election just Metro offices are being decided, not just people in Davidson County are voting but a true Metro election. And that was August of 2016 in that particular case. And for us, it’s August 2020. Metro knows this, and they’re just purposely spreading false information.

Leahy: So it’s interesting. They argue that it should have been the August election back to get the Community Oversight Board referendum on the ballot. It got on the ballot and was passed by the voters. Now we have a community oversight board. Are they going to literally make exactly the opposite argument when you go to court to get this on the ballot?

Roberts: Not only do I expect them to do that, which is incredibly dishonest, but one of the things that they argued in the oversight board case was that the people should have a right to go ahead and vote on it. And if there’s a problem with it, that can be determined later in court. But they should let the people vote on it. They were all about letting the people vote on that referendum. I am pretty certain that they won’t be as happy about letting people vote on this one.

Carmichael: Well, you’re going to see. I think that the strategy of filing for a declaratory judgment to move the thing along quickly is probably the wise course of action because the last time you kind of you waited for them, and now they’ve already pretty much said they’re going to sue over this. So you’re going to sue first and bring it to a head quickly.

Roberts: That’s right.

Carmichael: It will be interesting to see how the judge rules given the other recent ruling.

Roberts: That’s right. That gives us more time. If you remember last time they said they were going to sue and they never did. I finally had to sue Metro to force them to put it on the ballot because they clearly had no intention of actually doing anything. They just wanted to sort of stall and delay. We’re going to go forward.

I’d like to do it today, but I just think I’ve got too much work to do to get it done today. But maybe Monday or Tuesday or at the latest next week. We’re going to force Metro to put this on the ballot. The people deserve the right to vote on it. And if they vote yes on some of these, and no on some of these, that’s fine. I’ve given the people the opportunity to vote. They’re all good and they all should be voted for. But people’s minds differ sometimes.

Leahy: When do you think that the chancery court, which is, I guess where this will go, when do you think they would rule on whether your numbers right or the other number is right?

Roberts: We’ll file everything on an expedited basis. We’ll be pushing this very quickly. Almost certainly when Metro loses, they’re going to want to go to the court of appeals to try to tie up our resources. And remember, they’re using your tax dollars to fight this. They have unlimited resources to spend. They probably spent two or 300,000 dollars last time trying to keep you off the vote. I don’t think they won’t spend that or more.

Leahy: Yes, probably. They want to just nip it in the bud, that’s for sure.

Carmichael: Do you know which judge you’ll get?

Roberts: No, it’s supposed to be random. I do tend to get Chancellor Lyle more often than not, but it’s supposed to be random.

Carmichael: How many chancellor court judges are there?

Roberts: There are four.

Leahy: Okay, so you got four chances. Jim Roberts come back next week at the same time. Tell us what’s happened. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for all your hard work to roll back the 34 percent property tax with the Nashville Taxpayer Protection Act. Jim, thanks for joining us.

Roberts: Thank you for having me. Have a good day.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Background Photo “Nashville City Hall” by Nicolas Henderson. CC BY 2.0.

 

 

PJTN Founder and President Laurie Cardoza-Moore Talks California’s Anti-Semitic Curriculum and Appointment to the Tennessee Textbook Commission

PJTN Founder and President Laurie Cardoza-Moore Talks California’s Anti-Semitic Curriculum and Appointment to the Tennessee Textbook Commission

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed Laurie Cardoza-Moore from Proclaiming Justice to the Nations to the newsmakers line to talk about California’s anti-Semitic school curriculum and her recent appointment to the Tennessee Textbook Commission.

Leahy: We are joined this morning by our good friend, president, and founder of Proclaiming Justice to the Nation. Laurie Cardoza-Moore. Good morning, Laurie.

Cardoza-Moore: Good morning, Michael. How are you?

Leahy: I’m great. I think California is not so great. Tell us about what they just did out there.

Cardoza-Moore: Well, they just enacted the Ethnic Studies Model curriculum. More propaganda and more disinformation for California students. But Michael, actually it’s very similar to the curriculum and content that we’re seeing being adopted across the country. They just have a different name. And so the school board decided to adopt this curriculum. Again, I think it was over 100,000 emails and phone calls requesting that they not adopt the curriculum because of the propaganda in it, because it’s discriminatory, and because of the way they portrayed Jews.

It’s absolutely outrageous. And now their legislature is getting ready to vote on whether it is going to be mandatory, because currently, right now, that curriculum is not required for all students to take in order to graduate. But they are looking at a piece of legislation that is working its way through their legislature to make this ethnic studies program a requirement for students to graduate.

Leahy: So it’s a 900-page curriculum. Is this anti-Semitic? This Ethnic Studies Model curriculum?

Cardoza-Moore: Absolutely. Absolutely. When they started with the first draft, it’s gone through four iterations. When they started with the first draft, they had people who were tied to the anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter who helped to draft the curriculum. Of course, we know that the Black Lives Matter group when they launched their program last June in California in Los Angeles’s Fairfax District, which is a heavily populated Orthodox Jewish community, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, who are all about Marxism, never apologized, and never condemned the desecration of synagogues, or the spray painting on the Beverly Hills sign, kill Jews.

And these are the same people who were asked to be involved in drafting this. Now, in this fourth iteration, they’ve incorporated the Mizrahi Jews, which is an Arab community, a Jewish community that is minimal. I’m still trying to research to see the anti-Semitic attacks that have happened against them that are separate from the anti-Semitic incidents that have occurred like in the Orthodox Fairfax District of Los Angeles because this community is an Eastern European Jew. They are white.

And, of course, this whole agenda that they’ve drafted is part of their White privilege initiative. They’re separating the Jews out. Basically keeping the white European Jews who are Ashkenazi as part of the white privilege. But, oh, the is Mizrahi Jews, they’re pitting the community against itself. It’s out of control. It’s unacceptable. And the parents and the citizens have spoken out. And there’s plenty more in the curriculum as well that is problematic.

Leahy: Yeah. Well, here’s the thing about that. California is run by crazy people. And the State Board of Education now has approved this curriculum. I’ve not read it, but I’ll take you at your word that it’s anti-Semitic. And now it’s going to go to the state legislature to mandate it. What do you think is going to happen there? It’s like a supermajority of crazy, insane leftist Democrats in both their state Senate and state Assembly. It seems to me they’re going to pass it, right?

Cardoza-Moore: Yes. Michael, it looks like they’re going to end up passing it unless the people can start recalling their state legislators. I don’t know. It’s the craziest thing that we’ve seen happen.

Leahy: Well, do you think California is lost?

Cardoza-Moore: No, I don’t. And let me tell you why Michael. Because look at the movement that happened with the recall of Governor Newsom. They had over two million signatures that they were able to garner to recall him. That is unprecedented. We are out there and we’re working to help educate and activate the citizens because our mission is more grassroots.

It’s more local dealing with the local control issues that we have within our local and state government. But the people are starting to rise up and they’re saying enough is enough. And I think it’s been because of the whole COVID crisis that people have lost businesses. They can’t keep a roof over their family’s heads. They can’t keep food on the table. Their kids are not in school, although that could be a good thing.

I keep telling people, just homeschool your kids. Even with your kids being home, why would you subject them to propaganda like the public education curriculum and not use a good curriculum? Just tell the schools to forget it. Take my kid off the list. I’ll homeschool my child thank you very much. I can do much better. So I think the people are waking up and that’s what we’re doing.

That’s why we’re coming in now because people are fed up with their government. I think too often many Californians have been sitting back and they’ve been laid back. They’ve allowed a small, loud minority to govern their affairs. And it’s Democrats and it’s Republicans. This is not just Republicans throughout the state of California. It’s Democrats, too, that are saying enough is enough. There are people leaving. Businesses are leaving Los Angeles. Families are moving out of the state of California. They don’t want it anymore.

Leahy: Back here in the Tennessee movement yesterday, you have been nominated by Speaker of the House Cam Sexton to serve on the Textbook Committee. On Wednesday I guess the House Education Committee approved you, and it’s going to go on to the approval by the floor of the House. That’s good news, isn’t it?

Cardoza-Moore: Absolutely. And of course, it’s also the Senate who is going to take it up next Wednesday in their Senate Education Committee. It’s very good news. And I have to tell you, Michael, I’m quite honored that the Speaker would nominate me for this position. I am grateful to all the legislators. I heard Representative Sparks on earlier before I came on, and he was very gracious and very supportive yesterday in the committee.

We have a major problem with curriculum in our schools, and it’s not just here in Tennessee. It is across this country. We, as parents and citizens of our state, of our counties, of our school districts must take back control of our communities. We have to take control back from our schools. These school board members run and I say that for the most part, because there are a small minority of school board members in different school boards across the country who are trying to make a difference.

But they are outnumbered because of the progressives who sit on these education boards. It’s very dangerous what is happening. Michael, I always refer back to what’s happened over the last year. We wonder what’s happened. Like in civics education, our children are being indoctrinated with propaganda to hate America, not to love America. Well, if you look at what’s happened in our country over the last year since the whole COVID crisis, we see Portland ablaze, Seattle ablaze, and Kenosha, Wisconsin ablaze.

And what are these local elected officials doing or the governors of these states? They’re telling their law enforcement to stand down while people’s businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed. We didn’t grow up this way, and there’s a reason. We were taught accurately about our country. We were taught to love America. We were taught an accurate perspective of our history, good and bad. That’s what makes the United States of America so unique. And it makes this country the country that other people esteem and want to come to and live in.

Leahy: When you get on the commission, put in a good word for our own book, the supplementary text Guide to the Constitution and Bill of Rights for Secondary School Students. We have a Constitution Bee based on that every year where we give out educational scholarships. We’ve had a difficult time having public schools actually embrace that. A few have but most are not paying a lot of attention to it. So put in a good word for us, if you would. Laurie Cardoza-Moore, thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

Visit Proclaiming Justice to the Nation at PJTN.org.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Laurie Cardoza-Moore” by Proclaiming Justice to the Nations.