How about doing a little research?

According to the U.S. State Department's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson, use of the phrase "hold down the fort" is offensive to Native Americans. The correct phrase is "hold the fort" but so many say "hold down the fort" that I won't fault Mr. Robinson for this little slip. His failing in the writing the article is worse: He doesn't know what he's talking about.
 First, Mr. Robinson's conclusion is based on nothing more than his woefully inadequate education. Mr. Robinson says that the phrase originated in the U.S.'s war against the Native Americans; therefore, the phrase is offensive to Native Americans.
Mr. Robinson's conclusion is based on a couple of facts: (1) The U.S. Army fought the Native Americans in the West; and (2) the Army built forts throughout the west as part of its war. So, "hold the fort" or "hold down the fort" must have originated  in America's war against the Native Americans and it must surely offend  today's Native Americans.
The second point is that forts pre-date America's battles with the Native Americans; and shocking as it might seem, pre-date the discovery of America. So, maybe the phrase pre-dates the war against the Native Americans in the West. Here is where a little effort on Mr. Robinson's part might have proven beneficial.
The phrase is rumored to have come about as a result of a message General Sherman sent by use of semaphores to a strong-hold at  Allatoona Pass in Georgia during the Civil War. The legend is that Sherman told the commander to "hold the fort." Although Sherman sent a message via semaphores, he denied he used this specific phrase. But the message was the same. Stories about Sherman's use of the phrase, however, led to the writing in 1870 of a Christian hymn of the same name. Here are the first two verses of the 1870 hymn:

Ho, my comrades, see the signal,
Waving in the sky!
Reinforcements now appearing,
Victory is nigh.

"Hold the fort, for I am coming,"
Jesus signals still;
Wave the answer back to heaven,
By thy grace we will."

             * * *
You can read the words here. You can read the overpaid Robinson's article here. 

Because Mr. Robinson doesn't let facts stand in his way of combating what he perceives as offensive language, he goes on to attack the phrase "rule of thumb." He tells his readers (and here I'm making an assumption) that the phrase has its origins in domestic violence. Robinson believes that the law in England once allowed a man to beat his wife if the circumference of the rod was not greater than the husband's thumb. There's no proof that this was ever the law in England. Here is a little more information Mr. Robinson failed to consider. The thumb has a history of being used for various ways of measuring. So, the phrase most likely is attributable to the history of measurement and not domestic violence. 

Which is worse: A chicken sandwich or 7 overnight shootings?

It depends on whom you ask? Chicago's mayor and board think it's the sandwich.  The 19 persons injured in last night's (8/23/12) shootings might have a different answer.
 usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13455250-19-hurt-in-7-overnight-shootings-in-chicago?lite
But that's why they're not in charge.

You're stupid! Sit down and shut up.

Rep.Tom Akin of Missouri is one of those people who need to be told, "Hey, you're a nice guy, but you're stupid. We have enough stupid people in Washington, so get yourself a hobby."
Fortunately for Rep. Tom Akin, I've found him a roommate. And his name is Tom; they could be Tom 1 and Tom 2 and alternate saying stupid things.
Lubbock County Judge Tom Head (bad week to be named Tom) warned a local news station of the civil unrest that will accompany Obama's re-election. This civil unrest will be sparked in large part, according to Judge Tom, when Obama attempts to hand over control of the United States to the United Nations. So Judge Tom wants Lubbock County to raise taxes so they can hire more highly trained deputies and attorneys to fight this. Now, I guess the deputies will back the judge when he stands up to the U.N. troops, but what are the lawyers going to do? (I'm going to overlook the fact that the U.N. doesn't have any standing troops. Or even any that are sitting down.)
Was this national-everyone-say-something-stupid week and I missed it? Oh man!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/texas-judge-warns-civil-unrest-un-troop-presence-if-obama-re-elected/?test=latestnews

Romney takes over for Nelson

For those who've been aware of politics--and specifically Republican politics--the name Nelson Rockefeller is a familiar one. You recall that being called a Rockefeller Republican was not a compliment. When was the last time you heard a Republican political candidate say, "I'm a Rockefeller Republican"? But you don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of candidates who say, "I'm a Reagan Republican." Rockefeller Republicans believed that we just needed a little more government to solve our problems. Conservatives, led by Reagan, understood that government was not the answer.
In 2011, The American Spectator drew the Romney-Rockefeller comparison. And in its analysis, The American Spectator included this quote from Reagan:
"I think the division of the Republican Party grew from pragmatism on the part of some [read Rockefeller] Republicans who said, 'Look what the Democrats are doing and they're staying in power. The only way for us, if we want to have any impact at all, is somehow to copy them.' This was where the split began to grow, because there were other people saying, 'Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention.'"http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/14/is-mitt-romney-the-new-nelson/print
Unfortunately, beating the Democrats has become the be-all-and-end-all for today's Republicans. No longer is there anyone on the national stage saying, "Wait a minute. There is great danger in following this path toward Government intervention." 
So, if you think beating Obama is all that matters, vote for Romney. But don't insult conservatives by claiming Romney is anything other than a Rockefeller Republican.

Update on Chick-Fil-A

Here is Eugene Volokh's post on his blog--The Volokh Conspiracy--about the Civil Rights Agenda's complaint filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights against Chick-Fil-A.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/10/civil-rights-agenda-files-antidiscrimination-complaint-against-chick-fil-a-based-on-chick-fil-as-speech/

Quote of the day. (Even if I don't know who said it first.)

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."

I don't know who first said this, some attribute it to Lincoln but others say Lincoln didn't say it. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125169095 Oh well, its still a message. Don't let the fact Obama used it turn you off from the quote, Reagan used it before Obama.

Does the city of Memphis need new lawyers?

The city of Memphis has launched an attack on the state's photo i.d. law. http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2012/aug/10/judge-hints-at-path-of-voter-id-challenge/ The city bases its challenge on Art. IV, § 1 of the state constitution. Specifically, the city believes that the requirement of photo i.d. adds to the voter qualifications set forth in Tennessee's constitution. The city's attorneys rely on the following provision:

"Every person, being eighteen years of age, being a citizen of the United States, being a resident of the State for a period of time as prescribed by the General Assembly, and being duly registered in the county of residence for a period of time prior to the day of any election as prescribed by the General Assembly, shall be entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections held in the county or district in which such person resides. All such requirements shall be equal and uniform across the state, and there shall be no other qualification attached to the right of suffrage." Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1.

What the attorneys overlook, however, is the next sentence:

"The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws requiring voters to vote in the election precincts in which they may reside, and laws to secure the freedom of elections and the purity of the ballot box." Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1 (emphasis added).

Isn't requiring the person who is about to cast his ballot to prove that he is who he says he is "secur[ing] . . . the purity of the ballot box"? 

Those who fear photo i.d. requirements always cite an example of an elderly person who can't get out to get a photo i.d. But couldn't this person cast an absentee ballot? Those opposing photo i.d. will quickly respond, "The availability of absentee ballots proves photo i.d. isn't the best way to ensure the purity of the ballot box." And they might be right; but neither the wisdom of a law nor its efficacy are the tests for a law's constitutionality. As my idol Justice Scalia has said, "[A] law can be both economic folly and constitutional." CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69, 96-97 (1987) (Scalia, J. concurring).

The Second Amendment is still under attack!

If you thought that following the Hellar decision Second-Amendment advocates could rest easy, you'd be wrong.
Elliot Spitzer believes that New York's mayor, a/k/a King Michael, and our president should tell gun manufacturers, "Our governments will not deal with you unless you stop selling semi-automatic weapons and stop manufacturing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds." http://www.slate.com/blogs/spitzer/2012/08/07/gun_control_obama_and_bloomberg_
could_limit_semi_automatics_by_using_government_purchasing_power_.html  If Spitzer bothered to look at the facts, he would see that about 80% of handguns manufactured are semi-automatic. This makes his outrageous recommendation all the more absurd. He would love to live in Maryland!
Maryland bans the carrying of a handgun outside the home, openly or concealed, without a permit. The state, however, will graciously issue you a permit if you show that you aren't a convicted felon, you haven't been convicted of a drug offense, you are neither an alcoholic nor a drug addict, and you have not exhibited a propensity  for violence or instability. Additionally, the government's ominously named Handgun Permit Unit must "determine that [you have] good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." 
Maryland resident Raymond Woollard challenged the law when the Handgun Permit Unit decided he no longer had "good and substantial reason" to have a carry permit. I'll leave to you the pleasure of reading about Mr. Woollard's reason and how the omniscient government decided he no longer faced any threat and wouldn't be needing that pesky old permit. http://marylandshallissue.org/share/opinions/Woollard_Opinion.pdf 
The district court in Maryland found that the Second Amendment's protection of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" extends beyond the home. The court then held the statute unconstitutional because it required the applicant to show he had "good and substantial reason" for a carry permit. The state appealed the decision to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the case is set for expedited hearing on October 23. 
FYI, there are significant Second Amendment cases pending in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. Anyone want to bet what the Ninth Circuit's opinion will be? 

I'm back!

After a not-so-brief absence, Tennessee Commentator is back! I'll put up my first substantive post this evening.