Monday, April 30, 2012

Crystal Coast Tea Party Meetings

A reminder of our two meetings Tuesday, May 1 -

The Up West Tea Party Meeing will be Tuesday, May 1, 7 PM at Ribeye Steakhouse in Cape Carteret. Please come early if you plan to eat. The Ribeye manager would appreciate you placing your order at the desk before heading back to the room behind the bar.

The weekly CCTPP meeting will be at the Golden Corral in Morehead City, Tuesday, May 1 beginning at 6 PM. Come early to eat and chat.

We hope you will join us for some great conversation.

Crystal Coast Tea Party

345 McCotter Blvd
Newport, NC  28570

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

Why a Marriage Amendment?

by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012

My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.

Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."

Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.

A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.

Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012

Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.

In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."

In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "

Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.

The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.

Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.

In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.

There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]

[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].

Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.

It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”

Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:

"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.

It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.

Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.

Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."

Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."

Wilkins went on to write:

“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”

The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'

The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."

But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)

Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)

Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).

A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.

And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:

"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.

As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'

Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.

Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.

Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.

Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).

2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.

Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.

This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.

Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.

The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.

The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.

The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.

By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."

Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."


Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment

Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at:

W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at:

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at:

"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at:

Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at:

The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.

Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --

Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)

Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!

Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.

Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!

The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).

When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.

A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.

<> (Wiki)

A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....

<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]


In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.

North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!

This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Will lawmakers act to close tax loophole for illegal immigrants?

From Indiana to Capitol Hill, thousands of people are now weighing in on a WTHR investigation exposing a tax loophole worth billions for undocumented workers. But what, if anything, can be done about it?

Randy Ramsey is not that person

Note:  CCTA is a non partisan organization.  We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party.  News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

Publisher's note: We are receiving a good many short missives suggesting that Randy Ramsey is a RINO, and that he does not take his electorate responsibility seriously. We make no assertion to the veracity of this information; however, many others, from Mr. Ramsey's home region, have made these claim, and that is most troubling.

To counter these profound and rather robustly offered assertions, we, at BCN, offer whatever space that Candidate Ramsey and his supporters need to adequately refute these damning claims of Mr. Ramsey's disloyalty to the Conservative principles that guide real Republicans, or this last missive that suggests that Candidate Ramsey does not take his position in this citizen electorate. We, at BCN, are here to help all who wish to express all polite and representative expression of the intrinsic principals that make us who we really are.

At the Republican Men's Club in New Bern, Randy Ramsey, when asked if he hires illegals; said that he has four with green cards because they had skills that couldn't be found around here. I thought we had some of the best boat builders in the country here that need jobs.

I met one of his Mexicans at early voting in Newport. I asked her if she was there to work for a candidate since she was there four hours before early voting started. She said she was there to work for Randy. I then asked her if she worked for him and she said she was a 'private contractor'. I asked her if she worked at Jarrett Bay. She said that she worked in the office. I guess office work is one of those skills than couldn't be found here.

Could one of Randy's 'private contractors' maybe drive a bus between Havelock and Jarrett Bay that I've been hearing so much about?

I've talked to five of Randy's former employees. Maybe they never had the 'needed skills'.


Friday, April 27, 2012

Randy Ramsey Interview on Phil Knight

Randy Ramsey Interview on Phil Knight--If you missed this interview on the Phil Knight show, here is the link. Click the link below to watch Phil Knight interview Randy Ramsey. Judge for yourself. Then ask yourself if you want to send someone to Raleigh who expects to get paid to do favors for those who can afford him

Is contested GOP primary a sign of party’s strength?

Three vie for Republican nomination to NCState House District 3

DISTRICT 3 – For the first time in decades, a trio of Republicans are seeking their party’s nomination to this district’s General Assembly seat in the state House.

Many see the contested primary as a flexing of local GOP muscle. However, it’s safe to say that the candidates themselves – Wayne Langston of Chocowinity, Michael Speciale of New Bern, and Clayton Tripp of Vanceboro -- take little solace from such an observation.

For these gentlemen, the May 8th primary represents the culmination of an expensive, tough campaign – with the winner emerging to take on a well-rested, well-known Beaufort County Democrat, Robert Cayton, who can waltz into the November elections because he has no primary opposition.

Langston, Speciale, and Tripp recently submitted their responses to four identical questions, posed by The County Compass. Although the candidates’ ideologies are similar, astute voters will likely discern subtle differences.


Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Sigh: DWS' Lie of the Day

Guy Benson
Political Editor,
Apr 24, 2012 04:03 PM EST

We could probably make this a daily installment, although I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to keep up with the DNC Chairwoman's endless distortions. Her latest whopper came on CNN this morning, during a spat with conservative contributor Will Cain:

Ignore, for a moment, the crux of their dispute, and focus on this snippet:

“I’m a member of Congress in the minority, unfortunately, which I plan to help change in November,” Schultz shot back. “But the people who control the agenda right now in the House of Representatives are the Republicans. Ask them why they haven’t brought a single jobs bill to the floor since they took over the majority. Ask them why they are getting ready to allow the student loan interest rates to double.”

The House Republicans "haven't brought a single jobs bill to the floor" since January 2011? This is a wildly false claim. Case in point: The House recently passed something called, um, the JOBS Act -- which cleared the Senate and was signed into law by President Obama. At the time, I noted that the bill wasn't the first bipartisan jobs legislation this GOP-controlled House helped implement (numerals added):

Let the record show that as of today, the "do nothing," "Republican" Congress has worked with the president by (1) extending the payroll tax cut extension, (2) passing patent reform, (3) repealing a counter-productive withholding rule, and (4) approving three free trade agreements. These were all elements of President Obama's jobs agenda. Now he's (5) signed a job creation bill championed by House Republicans. Remember this roster of bipartisan accomplishments as our desperate president castigates his Congressional opponents as unflinching ideological obstructionists -- as he's guaranteed to do for the next seven months. The truth is that Republicans cooperate with this president when it's sensible to do so; they attempt to jettison his worst ideas, like cap and trade, Obamacare, higher taxes, and a second slush fund stimulus.



April 26, 2012, 7:00 pm: Craven County GOP Meeting at the Trent Woods Town Hall, 912 Country Club Drive, Trent Woods, NC 28562 Contact: Chuck Tyson, Chairman--h) 252/637-9102; m) 252/670-5230; o) 252/633-5766 or email:

April 27, 2012, 3:00-4:00 pm: Craven County Commissioner, Scott Dacey will hold a 'Listening Session' for citizens at the River Bend Town Hall, River Bend, NC.

April 27, 2012, 7:00 pm:  Republican Candidates Forum (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC), Township 7 Firehouse, 1705 Old Cherry Point Road in New Bern , NC.  Candidates Attending are - Rep. Norman Sanderson for State Sentate, Dist 2; Rep. Stephen LaRoque for State House, Dist 10; Frank Palombo for U.S. House, Dist 3; Tony Gurley and Arthur Rich for Lt. Governor; Ed Goodwin for Sec. of State; Mike Causey for Commissioner of Ins.; Wayne Langston, Michael Speciale and Clayton Tripp for State House, Dist 3; and Dave McFadyen for 3B District Court Judge.  Sponsored by Grantham 1A

Meet John Bell at the Craven County GOP New Bern office

May 4, 2012, 2:00 pm:  Meet John Bell at the Craven County GOP New Bern office. 

Come out and meet John Bell, candidate for NC House District 10 and get your questions answered! The GOP office is located in
Berne Square
, 2652 Martin Luther King, in the same center as Big Lots. Our phone number is 252-633-1420 or 252-229-2141.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

'Table Talk -- Agenda 21' on Wilson NC Tea Party!


April 26, 2012 from 6pm to 8pm at Location: Golden Corral in Wilson NC
Organized By: Virginia Morris

Guest Speaker: Dr. Greg Brannon (from Cary, NC)

Dr. Brannon is a constitutionalist and founder of the website Founders’ Truth. He is a regular on the Bill LuMaye talk show on WPTF...usually visits with Bill each Thursday. He has studied Agenda 21 extensively, and has written about it on the website.

If you want to know more about Agenda 21...What is it? Who is behind it? Where did it originate? What gives Agenda 21 its ruling authority? Is Agenda 21 in your community?...then join us for this presentation.

See more details and RSVP on Wilson NC Tea Party:

NC--Ferry Tolls Put On Hold

Message from Rep. Norman Sanders:

Ferry Tolls Put on Hold

"This is just another step in the process of removing tolls from the ferries that provide a valuable service to our area. I will continue to work within the system to make sure that no undue economic burdens are placed upon the citizens who rely on the ferry as an important part of their transportation."

N.C. Representative Norman Sanderson

Raleigh, NC - Representative Norman Sanderson exited this mornings' Joint Oversight Committee on Transportation meeting pleased that additional tolls on the North Carolina Ferry system have been put on hold. The Committee voted to approve an amendment to the State Budget, striking one key sentence. The sentence slated for removal reads "The Board of Transportation shall establish tolls for all ferry routes, except for the Ocracoke/Hatteras Ferry and the Knotts Island Ferry."

Representative Sanderson has been working to remove the tolls that were part of the total state budget. "This is just another step in the process of removing tolls from the ferries that provide a valuable service to our area. I will continue to work within the system to make sure that no undue economic burdens are placed upon the citizens who rely on the ferry as an important part of their transportation" Sanderson said.

The Legislature will debate and vote on the amendment when they return back to full session, beginning May 16.

Meet John Bell, Candidate for NC House 10, April 24th 7:00 pm

Just a reminder that I will be hosting a meet and greet tonight with district 10 candidate John Bell. It will be at 7pm at my house, 109 Channel Run Dr. in River Bend.

I also have yard signs available for many of our local candidates if anybody is interested. Hope to see you there!

Mike Spencer

River Bend
Left on Shoreline Drive, left on Plantaion Drive and Left on Channel Run Drive

Monday, April 23, 2012

Congressman Walter Jones: Human Events--Summertime Blues

This week, Human Events, the national conservative weekly, is profiling my efforts to ensure that Eastern North Carolinians and visitors to the Outer Banks can continue to enjoy access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area. As you may know, the Outer Banks economy, already suffering from the Obama recession, is being hit hard by the National Park Service’s policies with regard to vehicle and even pedestrian access to the seashore. Environmentalist bureaucrats have enacted rules limiting access on federal lands throughout the country which are causing havoc on local economies while doing little to nothing to protect wildlife. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation in Congress, H.R. 4094, which would ensure reasonable access to the Hatteras Seashore. I’m happy to tell you that the House Resources Committee will hold a hearing on my bill this week! I appreciate the support you’ve shown on this issue and look forward to continuing the fight to restore taxpayers’ access to federal lands like Cape Hatteras.


Summertime Blues

by Audrey Hudson

Planning a vacation this summer to Miami’s Biscayne Bay for a little fishing?

Think again, because the National Park Service wants to set aside a large swath of the pristine area as a marine reserve zone, so you might have to leave the fishing poles at home. And the boat.

Perhaps horseback riding is more your speed and the family plans to ride through California’s Sequoia or Kings Canyon National Parks? Sorry, but all of the permits were pulled for those activities this summer.

Or maybe you just want to lounge on the soft sands of North Carolina’s Outer Banks and read a novel, fly a kite with the kids, toss a Frisbee to the dog, and watch dad catch some fish?

No, no, no and no.

Beachcombers along specific stretches of those legendary shores are seeing signs telling them to leave their kites and pets at home, and to watch where they step.

“Leave no footprints behind. Walk in water where footprints wash away,” read the signs posted in February by federal officials.

Beaches that once welcomed fisherman to drive up to the water’s edge are also off-limits to the vehicles, and so is fishing.

These vacation destinations are all national parks that once encouraged such recreational uses and enjoyment but their new “no trespassing” attitudes have angered the local communities, and some in Congress as well.

In March, Rep. Walter Jones (R–N.C.) challenged the restrictions imposed by the beach signs, which were the result of battles with environmentalists to protect certain species.

The park service that operates the Cape Hatteras National Seashore pledged to replace them, and the new signs will read: “Walk near water’s edge. Stay below high tide line.”

Still not allowed: kites, pets, vehicles, or fishing. Sunbathing is permissible if you don’t mind getting hit by the waves every few minutes.

Beach access

“The federal government needs to remember that Cape Hatteras was established to be a recreational area for the American people,” Jones said. “But taxpayers can’t recreate without access to the beach. The goal of management ought to be a balanced approach between visitor access and species protection.”

Roping off national parks to the public and limiting opportunities for recreation, which in some cases were at the request of environmental groups, is a growing trend that lawmakers say they will examine during an oversight hearing of a House Resources subcommittee on April 27.

Florida’s Biscayne National Park is one of the largest urban recreational fishing and boating parks in the United States, but federal park employees say the coral reef is declining; so, boating and fishing must be restricted in certain areas.

Florida Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart and David Rivera are challenging the proposed rule, which would close off 20 percent of the park to boating and fishing.

“The park service appears to have decided that it knows best, and that allows it to ignore the public in the pursuit of its own notions of sound conservation,” a group of Florida marine and fishing organizations said earlier this month in a letter to the editor of Soundings Trade Only Today.

Companies fold and jobs lost

In California, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes says that by eliminating horseback rides to the backcountry, the National Park Service has essentially blocked the only access that many Americans, including those with disabilities and the elderly, have to wilderness areas. The new restrictions are the result of a lawsuit brought by environmentalists who say the activity may be a threat to nature.

Losing the permits means that at least 15 companies that provided horseback rides are out of work this summer, along with an estimated 500 employees.

“This is just another example of the Obama administration actively killing jobs,” Nunes said. “They have the authority to seek permission from the courts to put these folks back to work, yet they have so far refused to entertain the option.”

“Ironically, the Obama administration is pushing backcountry horsemen out of business at the same time it is urging Americans to ‘get outdoors.’ The White House could demonstrate an interest in protecting these outdoor jobs with a simple act,” Nunes said.

Nunes wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar April 17 asking that the administration intervene to reissue the permits.

“The national parks are funded by these taxpayers who have the right to access these parks,” Nunes said.

A spokeswoman for the National Park Service said they have received Nunes’ letter but have not issued a response. They are also aware of the congressional hearing, but no testimony has been drafted.

A statement from the park service office in North Carolina said the new rules there “will protect and preserve the unique natural and cultural resources of this dynamic barrier ecosystem while permitting the use of vehicles on seashore beaches and provide a variety of safe visitor experiences while minimizing conflicts among various users.”

Additionally, the park superintendent of Biscayne National Park says that restricting fishing to 7 percent of that park will increase opportunities for snorkeling and promote a healthy coral reef.

“Biscayne’s coral reef is its Old Faithful, the signature feature that draws visitors time and again,” Mark Lewis said in an April 9 letter to Soundings Trade Only Today. “Let’s showcase the reef and make this the wonderful tourism destination it should be,” Lewis said.

Jones has authored legislation specifically to address the situation in North Carolina, which he says would preserve access to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.

Jones’ bill tells Salazar that pedestrian and vehicle access for recreation should be restricted on small portions of the beach and for a shorter period of time.

Park service ‘heavy-handed’

John Couch, who owns the Red Drum Tackle Shop in Buxton, N.C. and is president of the Outer Banks Preservation Association, said the community supports protections for the birds and turtles, but that the park service is being unreasonable and “heavy-handed” by cutting off miles and miles of access to the beaches and the recreation it provides.

“Experiences that visitors expect are now closed off because of hugely excessive and unprecedented buffer zones that just closes off the beach,” Couch said. “These are immense obstacles.”

Couch says the restrictions have already proven to be bad for the tourism industry.

“These overzealous restrictions have taken a heavy toll on the tackle shop; business is off by 30 and 50 percent. It’s bad,” Couch said.

“On the other side, the environmentalists have good intentions, but this plan is not working. I’m suffering as a member of the business community. I have no expectation of what to expect,” Couch said.

“It’s fine and dandy to protect the environment, but at the same time we have a mandate to provide protection of resources, as well as enhance the future and present recreational opportunities. But that’s not what’s going on. Now it’s a single mandate which is to protect the environment,” Couch said.

Couch said humans are not the threat to the birds and turtles, but severe storms and predators such as foxes, possums, raccoons, otter, mink and nutria are its natural enemies.

“Man doesn’t have a hand in this,” Couch said.


A Message from NC Representative Norman Sanderson

Note:  CCTA does not endorse candidates or political parties.  Information is presented for you the reader, to be informed and draw your own conclusions.

Norman Sanderson--NC Senate District 2 Candidate

Desperate people resort to desperate measures, and there is no better example than my opponent's recent attacks on not just me but the entire North Carolina Republican Party.

By now you may have received a few of these outrageous mailers from my opponent, Randy Ramsey, saying I voted to implement Obamacare. Political distortion has reached a new low as he has misrepresented a bill designed to LIMIT the power of Obamacare, a bill that was supported by every Republican in the State House.

Here are the facts:

The legislation referenced in Ramsey's flyer is House Bill 115 which was a bill that was a safeguard against the Federal Government having total control over Obamacare funding it if became law. There is the full title of that bill: An Act to Preserve State-Based Authority to Regulate the North Carolina Health Insurance Market and Prevent Federal Encroachment on State Authority by Establishing the North Carolina Benefit Exhchange. How can anyone interpret the words Preserve State-Based Authority and Prevent Federal Enchroachment and believe it supports Obamacare? A failure to act would have meant Washington, DC, not North Carolina, would have made all decisions regarding Obamacare. If the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional, the bill is null and void.

House Bill 115 was supported by EVERY REPUBLICAN in the State House and even 18 Conservative Democrats. The only opposition came from the most liberal Democrats. Randy Ramsey has taken sides against the Republican Party and said he would have voted with the liberals. Anybody surprised?

The truth is on our side but we have one glaring obstacle to overcome: MONEY. Randy Ramsey is on pace to spend $250,000 in this primary. He has purchased over $100,000 worth of radio and TV this week alone. This type of money spreads his distorted message out to the masses and as I send out this message, we are rushing to produce radio and television ads to respond to these outrageous claims.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Sun Journal Letters to the Editor--New Bern, NC

Marriage Amendment Letters:

Of the 12 letters published today on the Marriage Amendment 9 were against and 3 for it. Shows the paper’s left leaning doesn’t it. Not surprising of those 9 folks against the amendment were 5 Democrats and 3 unaffiliated and one person who does not appear to be from Craven County at all. The three folks who wrote in favor of protecting the sanctity of marriage 2 were Republicans, again, not surprising. Most of the letters were out and out lies and nonsense.

For the real facts on the issue:  Read “What It Does” a letter fro Jerry Schill, Co-Chairman of the Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition, my friend and a very honorable man.

Sun Journal Letter to the Editor: What it does by Jerry Schill

April 22, 2012

Regarding the Marriage Amendment:

• Gay marriage and domestic partnerships are illegal under CURRENT North Carolina law, passed by the General Assembly.

• If the Marriage Amendment passes on May 8, gay marriage and domestic partnerships will CONTINUE to be illegal. However, the definition will have the added protection of a constitutional amendment. The amendment makes it clear that marriage shall be the only domestic legal union recognized in North Carolina.

• The passage of the Marriage Amendment will not ADD any rights to gays but neither does it take any away.

• The amendment does NOT take away private contractual rights for unmarried couples.

• The amendment does NOT prohibit local governments or the UNC System from providing benefits to unmarried partners.

• The amendment does NOT interfere with benefits that private employers provide to gay couples.

• The amendment will NOT harm North Carolina’s economy. Gay marriage has been illegal in our state for several years, and the amendment will not change that fact from an employer’s or business standpoint.

So, if it’s already illegal and does not ADD any gay rights or take any away, what’s the point with all this?

Activist judges! By putting the measure in our state’s constitution, we add protection from judicial activism which has been way too prevalent in our country.

Another question is why are Christians so engaged on this issue? I certainly cannot speak for all but I know many of us have been concerned about the eroding moral fabric and the disintegration of our family structure for a lot of years. We have witnessed what’s been happening but have done little to reverse it. We have had little help from the leadership in our churches, especially from the pulpit. We love our state and our country, and have decided to get engaged rather than just go to another meeting and talk about it and complain about “those in charge”.

To paraphrase Popeye the Sailor Man, “That’s all we can stands and we can’t stands no more!”

On May 8, please vote FOR the Marriage Amendment, which will define marriage IN OUR CONSTITUTION between one man and one woman as the only legal union recognized in North Carolina!

Jerry Schill
Craven-Pamlico Christian Coalition and Craven County coordinator for the passage of the Marriage Amendment

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

CRAVEN COUNTY: District 5 candidate’s forum set for Monday

The four candidates from District 5 seeking a seat on the Craven County Board of Education are invited to participate in a 7 p.m. Monday forum in the Brinson Memorial Middle School gymnasium. Seeking the seat are Rex Bennett, David Early Hale, Bernadette L. McNulty and Tanya Roberts. The District 5 seat has no incumbent seeking re-election; board member Becky Kafer is stepping down after 20 years. Parents and community members are invited to attend and ask questions. Registered voters in the district narrow the field to two candidates with their votes in the May 8 primary election. Voters countywide go to the polls in November.

Board of Education seats in Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 are up for election this year. District 5 is the only district with a primary race.

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

Video…4,000 Christians Show up at North Carolina Capital to Support Marriage Amendment

An Important Message to NC District 3 Residents: Wayne Langston

Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

An Important Message to NC District 3 Residents:

It is with great gratitude that I extend my heartfelt appreciation for your support during this campaign. The issues North Carolina and the nation face will only be solved by God-fearing, conservative-based elected officials who are elected by citizens of Christian Faith. Citizens, like you, who have had enough of the political nonsense, are now standing tall on their traditionalist base, and I say, “God bless you all” for your courage.

Now more than ever, it is time for Christians to stand together united with one goal – to reassert our values and faith on our states and our country! The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines clearly that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Government must stay out of the business of religion. Those of faith however, have every right in government! Our republic belongs to the people.

We are a peace loving people to a fault when it comes to allowing government to run roughshod over us. Politicians are not smarter, braver, or more religious than us. They are human beings who have followed a path and then succumbed to the power of the office. We must put an end to corruption by electing faith-based men and women who will focus on the truth and rely on their faith, values, and fairness to make the tough decisions.

As a citizen, your help is needed now! Why? Because we can’t sit idly by and do nothing any longer – we must act now and we must continue to voice our opinion.

 Your vote does count – Vote
 Your voice is important – Encourage others to vote
 Speak your mind – Respectfully notify your politicians about your concerns. Tell them what you expect of them, and
 Hold them accountable for their actions once in office.

My name is Wayne Langston and I am proudly running for the North Carolina House District 3 seat, and I want you to know where I stand on these issues:

 Small & Limited Government  Major Educational Overhaul
 Less Regulation  Increase in Military Strength
 Reduced Taxes  Commonsense Energy Independence
 Voter ID  NO Ferry Tax
 Lower Corporate Taxes  Reduced Administrative Costs
 Pro-Life  Accountability and Transparency
 States’ Rights  Marriage between 1 Man & 1 Woman
 Fairness & Equality  Business Friendly State = Jobs

Friends, I ask you to help me help our state. My heart and faith are exposed so that you may know me better. I am for God, Family and Country and I ask for your support, on May 8th, with my pledge that I will strive each day, to represent our interests openly and honestly in a Godly way. Please feel free to contact me via email me with any questions or concerns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kindest regards,

Wayne Langston
NC House Candidate, District 3

Psalm 33:12 - Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD.

Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina endorses Michael Speciale for NC House

Note: CCTA is a non partisan organization. We do not endorse any particular candidate or political party. News items are presented for you the reader to help you become informed and reach your own conclusions.

Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina endorses Michael Speciale for NC House—


April 18, 2012

(CRAVEN COUNTY, NC) - Michael Speciale, a candidate running for North Carolina House in District 3, has won the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina.

"Michael is a dedicated conservative who will truly fight for less government and more freedom in the North Carolina legislature” said David Williams, chairman of the Republican Caucus of North Carolina (RLC-NC). "His record of achievement in the professional and political arena make him the best choice for the job."

Mr. Speciale responded to the endorsement by saying, "It is an honor to be singled out for endorsement by the Republican Liberty Caucus. They are fighting the good fight against out-of-control government."

The Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina is a state chartered organization of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to advance the principles of individual rights, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party and throughout America.

Speciale, a resident of Craven County and retired US Marine, is seeking election to the North Carolina House of Representatives.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Obama Takes Major Step in Controlling Natural Gas

By executive order, Obama has created the beginning of a vast new regulatory system to control natural gas. Congress had nothing to say about this. Natural gas prices are falling due to new methods of extraction called fracking. This is creating havoc for the anti-growth environmentalists. It has dropped the price of natural gas. Across the nation, power companies are switching to natural gas. This means pollution-free power. This means that the enviros cannot get the votes to stop energy development, which is their real agenda. They have to reverse this. This is what Obama’s executive order is all about. It will be used to restrict fracking, thereby stopping the move to natural gas. Watch for this phrase: unconventional natural gas. This refers to underground gas that can be accessed through fracking. Here are highlights of the new rules.


2012 Civitas Candidate Responses--See Who Responded

2012 Civitas Candidate Responses--See Who Responded ... and Who Chickened Out--Over 150 candidates have responded to our Civitas survey so far! Surveys were mailed to all Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Council of State, and NCGA candidates. Please check out those who have responded here. They have taken the time to let voters know their thoughts and views on important policy issues affecting you.

Friday, April 20, 2012

‘Real News From The Blaze’

‘Real News From The Blaze’ on Citizens United and Congressional Democrats Move to Amend The Constitution

Avoiding any serious votes with a 10ft pole before the election, Democrats in the House moved on political posturing and symbolic legislation this week, as Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi joined other congressional Democrats on Wednesday in endorsing a movement to ratify an amendment to the Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals. The attempt to amend the Constitution is a response to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, and is in line with putting the president’s agenda against his presumptive Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, who Democrats so enjoy criticizing for once saying “corporations are people, my friend.”

A Letter from NC State Representative Pat McElraft

To the Editor:

As a State Representative, I am fully aware that politics is not for the faint of heart. Any elected official understands that they will be judged on their voting record and I stand on my record over the years. But when people distort that record, you must defend yourself and those who stand with you.

Upon hearing of my legislative colleague Norman Sanderson’s intention of running for State Senate, I promptly endorsed his candidacy. I have personally witnessed his conservative values and work ethic in the State House and have no doubt he will be a strong conservative voice for Carteret, Craven and Pamlico counties. After lending my initial endorsement, I made no other public comment. I thought that was the right thing to do as a Republican to let the candidates fight this out. However, I can no longer remain silent since I, personally,and 67 other Republican Legislators have been brought into this with the latest Randy Ramsey Ad and flyer.

State Senate candidate Randy Ramsey recently aired a radio ad and sent out a mailer that accused Representative Sanderson of voting to implement ObamaCare. I was the co-sponsor of the bill that was referenced (HB115) and it was supported by every Republican member of the House as well as 18 conservative Democrats. Only the most liberal Democrats voted against this largely procedural bill that saved North Carolina taxpayers countless dollars. In fact, the full title of the legislation was An Act to Preserve State-Based Authority to Regulate the North Carolina Health Insurance Market and Prevent Federal Encroachment on State Authority by Establishing the North Carolina Benefit Exchange. As the name implies, it was designed to limit the power of ObamaCare. Randy Ramsey’s blatant misrepresentation of this bill was not only an attack on Norman Sanderson but on every Republican who voted for this piece of common-sense legislation.

The very first piece of business for the Republican led legislature in 2011 was passing House Bill #2, entitled Protect Health Care Freedom. I was proud to co-sponsor that bill with Representative Sanderson, knowing that it protected North Carolina’s citizens from ObamaCare and the overreaching authority of the Federal Government into your health care decisions. That important piece of legislation would be law today if had not been vetoed by Governor Bev Perdue.

For anyone to say that Norman Sanderson, myself or any Republican legislator supports ObamaCare is outrageous and a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Randy Ramsey has either chosen to resort to distortion in a desperate attempt to gain votes or he has not researched the information his campaign team is releasing. Either way, the practice is unacceptable and should immediately cease.

Pat McElraft
Emerald Isle, NC
District 13 State Representative



Desperate people resort to desperate measures, and there is no better example than my opponent's recent attacks on not just me but the entire North Carolina Republican Party.

By now you may have received a few of these outrageous mailers from my opponent, Randy Ramsey, saying I voted to implement Obamacare. Political distortion has reached a new low as he has misrepresented a bill designed to LIMIT the power of Obamacare, a bill that was supported by every Republican in the State House. Here are the facts:

The legislation referenced in Ramsey's flyer is House Bill 115 which was a bill that was a safeguard against the Federal Government having total control over Obamacare funding it if became law. There is the full title of that bill: An Act to Preserve State-Based Authority to Regulate the North Carolina Health Insurance Market and Prevent Federal Encroachment on State Authority by Establishing the North Carolina Benefit Exhchange. How can anyone interpret the words Preserve State-Based Authority and Prevent Federal Enchroachment and believe it supports Obamacare? A failure to act would have meant Washington, DC, not North Carolina, would have made all decisions regarding Obamacare. If the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional, the bill is null and void.

House Bill 115 was supported by EVERY REPUBLICAN in the State House and even 18 Conservative Democrats. The only opposition came from the most liberal Democrats. Randy Ramsey has taken sides against the Republican Party and said he would have voted with the liberals. Anybody surprised?

The truth is on our side but we have one glaring obstacle to overcome: MONEY. Randy Ramsey is on pace to spend $250,000 in this primary. He has purchased over $100,000 worth of radio and TV this week alone. This type of money spreads his distorted message out to the masses and my campaign needs the money to answer.

As I send out this message, we are rushing to produce radio and television ads to respond to these outrageous claims. I ask you to respond immediately with your financial support so I can get my message out. I need you to respond NOW, as the inventory is limited due to other candidates buying ads. Time is of the essence. Please help me.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012



Monday April 23rd from 7:00-8:30 pm

Rolesville Community Center

NC Senate 18 Race:

  • Chad Barefoot
  • Glen Bradley
  • Michael Shriver
NC House 35:

  • Duane Cutlip
  • Chris Malone
Moderator: Kory Swanson, Executive Vice President, Kohn Locke Foundation

Sponsored by: 
  • The East Wake Republican Club
  • The Franklin County Republican Club
  • The Northern Wake Republican Club
  • Moccasin Creek Minutemen
  • We the People-FranklinCounty Patriots
  • The Rolesville Chamber of Commerce
Carlos Vidales, Treasurer
Northern Wake Republican Club

Michelle Obama: ‘This President Has Brought Us Out of the Dark and Into the Light’

This article made me so angry, I almost had a stoke!  See the quote, read the entire article!  ~ Lynn
The Weekly Standard noticed the scripture reference:
“Either way, in religious terms, light is used to denote the true path, presented either by God or a savior. Or by Barack Obama.” says Michelle Obama.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Did Buffett Help Obama Kill Keystone Pipeline to Reap Financial Gain?


As the nation’s gas prices skyrocket, critics argue that President Obama’s recent rejection of the $7 billion, “shovel-ready” Keystone XL oil pipeline, followed by his continued vow to “double down” on green energy, is a clear sign the administration plans to do little of substance in terms of American oil exploration. The move has also stirred controversy about the president’s real intentions concerning job creation and reducing pain at the pump for everyday Americans.

TransCanada and the Keystone XL oil pipeline

TransCanada filed an application to build the nearly 1,700-mile underground pipeline in 2008 and passed two rigorous State Department reviews. In February 2010, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a permit based on a thorough work up of the project.

“There has been a great deal of work and due diligence leading up to this decision,” said South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Dustin Johnson in an interview with DownStreamToday. “The record compiled in this case is pretty impressive. In the end, I feel the conditions we have placed upon this project ensure that it will be constructed in a manner that is sensitive to South Dakota and her people.”

Another Public Utilities official said he believed “the process by which this application was considered was open, thorough and fair” and Keystone openly pledged to station full-time personnel in South Dakota to respond to any emergency situations that may have arisen, according to the report.

That was apparently not enough for the White House, however, which sent TransCanada and others back to the drawing board in January 2012, citing environmental concerns.

To bypass obstacles created by special interest groups and the Environmental Protection Agency, a March 2012 amendment was introduced in the Senate that would have eliminated the need for a federal permit, while addressing environmentalists’ worries by placing more autonomy in Nebraska’s hands. After a vote, however, the measure was squashed 56 to 42.

If allowed, Keystone would have brought a reported 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. outposts and refineries on the Gulf Coast and created thousands of jobs.

In the wake of Obama’s political maneuvering, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper deemed the U.S. an unreliable energy partner and is thus expanding his country’s crude export. The move will result in Canada eliminating the discount it once afforded the U.S. on its oil products.

The administration’s alleged reason for rejecting the application for the pipeline submitted by Calgary-based TransCanada was said to be based on a “recommendation” by the State Department, which concluded there was not enough time to assess alternate pipeline routes. Yet, as we have pointed out, the pipeline was under review for no less than three years and was approved earlier. In addition, if environmental concerns were truly the catalyst for rejecting the pipeline, why then would the president seem comfortable with operating pollutant-emitting freight trains along a Northern railroad line through the United States?

Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Railroad

What would prompt the president to turn the lights out on what critics argue would have been an environmentally-sound, job-boosting, oil-producing project that would benefit the nation and preserve the financially beneficial Canadian-U.S. oil relationship? What does President Obama have to gain by rejecting Keystone XL and who else stands to benefit from his decision?

It was previously reported on The Blaze that Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad — a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska based Berkshire Hathaway — would be among those poised to reap sizable gains by the administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp’s oil pipeline permit. According to Bloomberg, Berkshire Hathaway completed its roughly $26.4 billion purchase of Burlington Northern, issuing new stock and paying out $15.87 billion in cash.

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern told Bloomberg. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”


Monday, April 16, 2012

TPN: Church versus State

There is an organization that promotes the separation of church and state (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). While their avowed purpose appeals to me, I share their desires but for totally different reasons and without banning the church from the market place. The AU believes that the church is a negative force in the social and political culture of the United States. My view, on the other hand, is that the government (state) is too restrictive regarding the church’s role in the society…particularly of the Christian faith. Any faith that attempts to evangelize without the use of force or intimidation should be welcome in the public square.

For Christians who may be fearful about such an open position, please recall the Hare Krishna movement of a few decades ago. My encounters with them were primarily limited to airports, and while I found them a tad annoying, they were harmless. And I never fell under their evil spell. There may be some Krishnas lurking around somewhere, but their movement seems to have lost its impetus and is no longer a visible presence. My view is that a state-enforced religion is inherently more ominous than a religious free-for-all in the marketplace. I have confidence in the truth of my faith, in the power of Almighty God and in the salvation message of Jesus Christ. State intervention is neither needed nor desired. If the state were to “implement” the Christian faith as an “official” government policy, then the distortions would begin immediately. I suspect that politicians and bureaucrats have no more respect for God and his Word than they do for the Constitution of the United States of America.

If the United States is indeed a Christian nation, the evidence will be in the fruits of the people….not in the laws, rules and regulations of Big Brother. The more involved the government becomes in defining the faith and its practices, the more likely it is that the government-approved Christian faith will be an abomination in the eyes of God. Freedom of religion in the United States should include the right to openly profess one’s faith….or no faith. It should allow one to question other belief systems without fear of reprisal or government punishment. Faith and belief are internal contracts with the Supreme Diety that often involve public professing. Public coercion, however, should never be part of the worship because the listeners’ hearts will be hardened and unwilling to hear the truth. In addition when a state endorses or promotes a singular faith, the priests either become politicians or the politicians become clergy as the two power centers are merged.

A state-mandated or state-endorsed faith is detrimental for another reason. Belief, faith and adherence are by their very nature individual matters. To collectivize them under the auspices of the state places another party between the believer and the Lord. We can note that within the evangelical Christian community there are differences or variances regarding doctrine, emphasis, organizational structure and ritual. Will the state mandate Methodism, Catholicism or Pentecostalism as the “official” practice of the state. What about all those independent bodies of believers who do not belong to any formal denominational organization? Will the state insist on pre-tribulation or post-tribulation teaching? Will baptismal immersion be required or forbidden? These are the types of issues that when incorporated into official governmental policy or protection can truly destroy the vibrancy of numerous congregations and their members.


Moore TEA Citizens needs YOUR HELP.

We have a great organization! We have many super members (over 1,700!) and a wonderful cadre of committee coordinators and team leaders. When you reflect on all that Moore Tea Citizens has accomplished since our formation in early 2009, it really is quite amazing.

All of us work very hard, and all time is, of course, strictly on a volunteer basis. No one gets paid a dime. And everyone works very hard to make every dollar of donated funds go as far as we can possibly stretch it.

We continue to be VERY busy with our North Carolina Moore County TEA Party efforts and we continue to need YOUR HELP!
Our many activities require funds for printing, paper, Constitutions (we've given away 20,000 copies in just the past 18 months!) flags, balloons, decorations for parades, insurance, postage, rentals, printer ink, and many other needs.

Some of our members 'just do it' for Moore TEA Citizens, donating books, pamphlets, flags, food galore, and of course their TIME, TALENT AND TREASURE.

In addition, since the Democrat National Convention will be held around Labor Day weekend in Charlotte, North Carolina, we have decided to plan a "billboard campaign" in at least 16 major locations where the traffic is heavy. Our letterhead on this page shows you the design for these colorful, one message billboards.


Once we meet our financial goal, the billboards will be posted from July until Election Day in November 2012.

We have also reserved mobile billboard coverage of Charlotte for the four days of the Democrat Convention.

The cost for the billboards is about $60,000. So far we have raised almost $48,000 (some promised and not yet received, but expected).

Hopefully this letter will trigger funds for two purposes. First, we ask you to help Moore TEA Citizens get support for its many activities, past, present and planned. The other purpose is to complete the funding for the billboard project.

Never has an election been more critical than this one. We have had ENOUGH - we must RECLAIM OUR COUNTRY!

We know you agree with our mission, and thank you for your interest and commitment to help. Contributions may be sent to Moore TEA Citizens, PO Box 4381, Pinehurst, NC, 28374, and will be acknowledged promptly.

We appreciate your generous support of Moore TEA Citizens.

Dee Park for the Moore TEA Planners Board
Moore TEA Citizens

PO Box 4381
Pinehurst, NC 28374