The Civitas Institute has mailed position surveys to all Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Council of State, and NCGA candidates. Survey responses we’ve received so far have provided a range of specific and sometimes surprising answers from the people who want to lead North Carolina. See the Completed Surveys.
http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/candidatesurveyresponses/
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Beaufort Candidates' Fourm April 3, 2012
Beaufort Candidates' Fourm--April 3, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
The Beaufort Patriot Tea Party, in cooperation with the Beaufort Observer and the County Compass, is sponsoring a Candidates’ Forum Tuesday April 3 at 7:00 p.m. at Beaufort County Community College. Candidates for the legislative seats from Beaufort County as well as the County Commission have been invited to participate.
Click here for more details.
This is an excellent way to gain information about who you will vote for in the May 8th primary. Candidates have been told they will be afforded time to make a statement about the issues they think most important and where they stand on those issues. We will also collect questions from the audience before the session starts and pose some of those questions to the candidates as time permits. If you have a question you want to hear discussed please give it to one of the registrars at the table as you enter the lobby before the session starts.
This will also be an excellent opportunity for each Tea Party Patriot to build their 10 X 10 network. Contact ten people and ask them to come with you, or meet you at the Forum. This presents you with a practical reason for contacting your ten people and sets the stage for doing so again as early voting begins (April 19 through May 5).
We will also have voter registration forms at the table. Anyone who is not registered to vote, or wishes to change party affiliation, may do so by picking up a Registration Form at the Forum and mailing or taking it to the Board of Elections (before April 13).
The May 8 primary will be critically important in determining who will control the majority in both the Legislature and County Commission. It is vital that we select nominees who will offer a conservative choice for the voters in November.
Please plan to attend Tuesday night and get ten patriots to be there with you.
The Beaufort Patriot Tea Party
http://beaufortpatriotteaparty.com/
The Beaufort Patriot Tea Party, in cooperation with the Beaufort Observer and the County Compass, is sponsoring a Candidates’ Forum Tuesday April 3 at 7:00 p.m. at Beaufort County Community College. Candidates for the legislative seats from Beaufort County as well as the County Commission have been invited to participate.
Click here for more details.
This is an excellent way to gain information about who you will vote for in the May 8th primary. Candidates have been told they will be afforded time to make a statement about the issues they think most important and where they stand on those issues. We will also collect questions from the audience before the session starts and pose some of those questions to the candidates as time permits. If you have a question you want to hear discussed please give it to one of the registrars at the table as you enter the lobby before the session starts.
This will also be an excellent opportunity for each Tea Party Patriot to build their 10 X 10 network. Contact ten people and ask them to come with you, or meet you at the Forum. This presents you with a practical reason for contacting your ten people and sets the stage for doing so again as early voting begins (April 19 through May 5).
We will also have voter registration forms at the table. Anyone who is not registered to vote, or wishes to change party affiliation, may do so by picking up a Registration Form at the Forum and mailing or taking it to the Board of Elections (before April 13).
The May 8 primary will be critically important in determining who will control the majority in both the Legislature and County Commission. It is vital that we select nominees who will offer a conservative choice for the voters in November.
Please plan to attend Tuesday night and get ten patriots to be there with you.
The Beaufort Patriot Tea Party
http://beaufortpatriotteaparty.com/
Friday, March 23, 2012
NC DEBATES
NCDebates.com will be airing the Republican Council of State Debate live from Wait Chapel on the campus of Wake Forest University on March 27, 2012.
The event is open to the public or can be seen via steaming video. This debate, hosted by the Wake Forest College Republicans, Forsyth County Republican Men's Club, and NC Tea Party will feature candidates from the following contests: Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer Superintendent of Public Instruction and Commissioner of Insurance. Candidates are still confirming their availability, so more races may be debated. The event will begin at 7:00. Visit NCDebates.com on March 27 for the Republican Council of State Debate streaming LIVE from Wait Chapel.
http://ncdebates.com/
The event is open to the public or can be seen via steaming video. This debate, hosted by the Wake Forest College Republicans, Forsyth County Republican Men's Club, and NC Tea Party will feature candidates from the following contests: Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer Superintendent of Public Instruction and Commissioner of Insurance. Candidates are still confirming their availability, so more races may be debated. The event will begin at 7:00. Visit NCDebates.com on March 27 for the Republican Council of State Debate streaming LIVE from Wait Chapel.
http://ncdebates.com/
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum today at 5pm ET
By Nate, on November 19th, 2011
Six GOP candidates will be participating in a forum focused on social issues hosted by The Family Leader this afternoon at 5pm ET. The event takes place at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. There will be no television broadcast since C-SPAN reversed its decision to broadcast the event citing budgetry reasons. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were also invited, however, both declined the invitation.
Live Stream: CitizenLink.com (Around 5pm ET)
Audio Stream: Bott Radio Network (Around 4:30pm ET)
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum
Details from The Family Leader: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
Six GOP candidates will be participating in a forum focused on social issues hosted by The Family Leader this afternoon at 5pm ET. The event takes place at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. There will be no television broadcast since C-SPAN reversed its decision to broadcast the event citing budgetry reasons. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were also invited, however, both declined the invitation.
Live Stream: CitizenLink.com (Around 5pm ET)
Audio Stream: Bott Radio Network (Around 4:30pm ET)
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum
Details from The Family Leader: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
Friday, August 12, 2011
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION: Would They Take A Bullet?
The Iowa Presidential debate included excellent signs of progress, and some very frustrating misconceptions about the Constitution. I was amazed and pleased to hear questions about the 10th Amendment and the role of government. Several times the debate moderators asked about the Constitution in relation to certain policy issues.
Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate. The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.
Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.
Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10th Amendment. She answered "No" when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional "chops". She understands that government at any level can't impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.
This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.
Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation. Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.
I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply. I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.
The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America. However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.
These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.
So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances. Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.
Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” "Would they take a bullet?" We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have. If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.
Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.
Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.
I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications. In Liberty,
Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate. The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.
Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.
Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10th Amendment. She answered "No" when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional "chops". She understands that government at any level can't impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.
This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.
Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation. Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.
I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply. I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.
The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America. However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.
These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.
So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances. Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.
Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” "Would they take a bullet?" We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have. If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.
Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.
Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.
I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications. In Liberty,
Van Irion
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Please Read Before You Vote!
October 27, 2010
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Letter to the Editor
Here is a very important question we should all ask ourselves. Why am I voting for a particular candidate? Perhaps a candidate supports programs that may benefit you and your family financially. Some folks vote strictly on party lines due to strong beliefs that one party is superior to another. Perhaps you are supporting candidates not because you necessarily like them, but because you don't like what the incumbents are doing. There are a multitude of reasons why people choose one candidate over another. I would argue, however, that there is a better way.
The Holy Bible tells us the answer plainly in Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Psalms 111:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do His commandments." We should all consider supporting candidates strictly on where they stand on moral issues. God will take care of the rest.
Here are two very good examples. Where does a candidate stand on abortion? How dare any person in government support such an abominable practice as abortion. Should we allow people to kill innocent babies in the name of convenience? Absolutely NOT. God has a plan for every life, according to His word. Calling it "a woman's right to choose" is baloney! How do the candidates you are voting for feel about abortion? Another issue is the gay rights agenda. God calls the practice of homosexuality an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). I know that is not a popular stance today, but God has not changed. Are you considering voting for a candidate that supports the so-called gay rights agenda?
God cannot lie. He tells us to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. Consider voting solely on the basis of how candidates stand on moral issues. God's agenda is vastly more important than man's agenda in the long run. If we turn our backs on God, we won't even have a country. Please exercise your right to vote on November 2nd.
Keith W. Nixon, Edenton NC
Sunday, October 17, 2010
SUN JOURNAL NEW BERN: LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Beware of backlash
2010-10-12
Hello. Is anyone listening? The State of North Carolina’s economic development, finance and tax organizations provide a variety of incentive programs to initiate new business and commercial investment. Programs include the One North Carolina Fund, Composite Bonds Program, and the Article 3J Tax Credit Program. From bonds and tax credits to monetary and non-monetary incentives, North Carolina has the power to induce new business into the state. In 2009, the Democrats voted for a state budget that raised $1 billion in additional taxes. Can you guess who pays that bill, and you wonder why the state has problems? The budget is $19 billion with increased taxes during a recession. It makes no sense.
With regard to the Nicholas Sparks film, “The Lucky One,” it will be filmed in Louisiana, which allots a 30 percent tax incentive on any motion picture project without caps on the size of the film or talent pay. North Carolina offers 25 percent and recently raised the film tax cap from $7.5 million to $420 million, with a cap on talent at $1 million. The previous Sparks film, “The Last Song,” was filmed in Georgia, which offered a 30 percent total tax credit. We could have matched them if we had wanted to.
The smear campaign letter of Sept. 26 throws innuendos out like a fastball pitcher — some are home runs and some are outs. That letter to the editor goes after groups for their perceived reverse support of a candidate implying that they are buying a N.C. House seat. These North Carolinian men are looking at the bigger picture. We have a Democratic-controlled state legislature; consequently, every House seat is important to bring conservative, fiscal responsibility and common sense to Raleigh. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue — it’s a progressive vs. conservative issue and what is best for district, our state, and our country.
Art Pope, president and vice-chairman of the board of directors for Variety Wholesalers, Inc. and a director of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), is a conservative. AFP organized national Tax Day Tea Parties and works to expose elected officials who choose to ignore the will of the voters. AFP is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process beginning at the grassroots level. What’s wrong with educating the voters on issues and candidates? Our schools barely educate our children on our rich history and the electoral process and parents are neglectful of demonstrating it as well. It’s easier to say, “I’m a Democrat or a Republican and you are too.” Imagine parents saying to their children, let’s review the candidate’s qualifications or the incumbent’s voting record, and then will make a decision, but don’t get me started on that subject, for now.
Murchison B. Biggs, chief financial officer of K.M. Biggs, Inc., a farming and retail sales company, is a conservative. What’s wrong with believing in fiscal responsibility and free-enterprise?
Fred Eshleman, CEO of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (PPD) is a conservative. What’s wrong with believing that smaller, less intrusive government is better for the economy?
Real Jobs NC, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, believes we need to return to a reliance on the free enterprise system that made our country great. Government doesn’t create jobs – businesses do. We all know that if government purports to create a job, it does it with money taken from individuals and businesses in the form of taxes. Real and new wealth can only come from new jobs created by the private sector. The goal of Real Jobs NC is to promote the principles of limited government, low taxation, and other policies as a means to create jobs in North Carolina. Tea party anyone?
Yes. Real Jobs NC paid for ads to inform voters. These ads were not intended as attacks on incumbents. Rather for the decisions they made in office, but hey if the truth hurts, so be it. For example, Real Jobs NC paid for a mailer advertisement that said, “Democrat State Representative Alice Underhill Voted to spend $2.7 Million on Polar Bears.” The purpose was to inform and let the citizens decided if they approved of her decision. The ad clearly states the ad was not authorized by a candidate. Thank God, citizens are finally getting tired of the blame game and realize that excessive spending at the local, state, and federal level must stop. We simply cannot afford it.
We have three candidates running in the race for the N.C. House of Representative District 3 seat. Democrat Alice Underhill is the incumbent who has served three terms in the General Assembly. Underhill stated that her “most important single accomplishment, working with Rep. William Wainwright, is helping to secure funds for the N.C. History Education Center at Tryon Palace.” OK. Let’s review her complete voting record before we cast our ballot, shall we?
Candidate Norman Sanderson defines himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” A businessman and former Deputy Sheriff in Pamlico County, Sanderson wants to bring focus on the needs of our citizens, reduce government spending, and balance the budget. He is not a career politician. He’s a citizen, like you and me, standing up and saying, “Enough is enough — I want to be a part of re-establishing conservative values and fiscal responsibility in our state.” I like the sound of that, thank you.
Candidate Herb Sobel is a Libertarian who believes, “We are in for a long, cold, dark period. I hope we still have enough freedom at the end to turn back these kinds of political systems that create a very difficult climate for people to prosper.” Give me positive and common sense thinking, please.
When individuals see a wrong being committed it is their duty to assist. It’s no different with politics. Individuals are allowed to contribute $4,000 per election. Corporations are prohibited from contributing money to a candidate. Believe it or not, it’s difficult raising money to run for an elected office. Since when is donating to a political candidate immoral or illegal? It is our civic duty to donate time and money to the candidates we choose to support and to the candidates we believe will help our state and country. When will we be accused of buying our way into heaven by donating and volunteering our time and money to our churches and synagogues? Hmm? Can’t have it both ways, you know?
Remember this, crucifying Pope, Biggs, Eshleman, AFP, and Real Jobs NC for reporting on Alice Underhill’s record and by reverse extension endorsing Norman Sanderson is not a reportable offense. If it is, then let’s attack the millions of individuals who donate time and money to their candidates. Go after them all — go ahead but beware of the backlash.
Cheryl Lee Switzer, CCTA MEMBER
New Bern
© Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
2010-10-12
Hello. Is anyone listening? The State of North Carolina’s economic development, finance and tax organizations provide a variety of incentive programs to initiate new business and commercial investment. Programs include the One North Carolina Fund, Composite Bonds Program, and the Article 3J Tax Credit Program. From bonds and tax credits to monetary and non-monetary incentives, North Carolina has the power to induce new business into the state. In 2009, the Democrats voted for a state budget that raised $1 billion in additional taxes. Can you guess who pays that bill, and you wonder why the state has problems? The budget is $19 billion with increased taxes during a recession. It makes no sense.
With regard to the Nicholas Sparks film, “The Lucky One,” it will be filmed in Louisiana, which allots a 30 percent tax incentive on any motion picture project without caps on the size of the film or talent pay. North Carolina offers 25 percent and recently raised the film tax cap from $7.5 million to $420 million, with a cap on talent at $1 million. The previous Sparks film, “The Last Song,” was filmed in Georgia, which offered a 30 percent total tax credit. We could have matched them if we had wanted to.
The smear campaign letter of Sept. 26 throws innuendos out like a fastball pitcher — some are home runs and some are outs. That letter to the editor goes after groups for their perceived reverse support of a candidate implying that they are buying a N.C. House seat. These North Carolinian men are looking at the bigger picture. We have a Democratic-controlled state legislature; consequently, every House seat is important to bring conservative, fiscal responsibility and common sense to Raleigh. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue — it’s a progressive vs. conservative issue and what is best for district, our state, and our country.
Art Pope, president and vice-chairman of the board of directors for Variety Wholesalers, Inc. and a director of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), is a conservative. AFP organized national Tax Day Tea Parties and works to expose elected officials who choose to ignore the will of the voters. AFP is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process beginning at the grassroots level. What’s wrong with educating the voters on issues and candidates? Our schools barely educate our children on our rich history and the electoral process and parents are neglectful of demonstrating it as well. It’s easier to say, “I’m a Democrat or a Republican and you are too.” Imagine parents saying to their children, let’s review the candidate’s qualifications or the incumbent’s voting record, and then will make a decision, but don’t get me started on that subject, for now.
Murchison B. Biggs, chief financial officer of K.M. Biggs, Inc., a farming and retail sales company, is a conservative. What’s wrong with believing in fiscal responsibility and free-enterprise?
Fred Eshleman, CEO of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (PPD) is a conservative. What’s wrong with believing that smaller, less intrusive government is better for the economy?
Real Jobs NC, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, believes we need to return to a reliance on the free enterprise system that made our country great. Government doesn’t create jobs – businesses do. We all know that if government purports to create a job, it does it with money taken from individuals and businesses in the form of taxes. Real and new wealth can only come from new jobs created by the private sector. The goal of Real Jobs NC is to promote the principles of limited government, low taxation, and other policies as a means to create jobs in North Carolina. Tea party anyone?
Yes. Real Jobs NC paid for ads to inform voters. These ads were not intended as attacks on incumbents. Rather for the decisions they made in office, but hey if the truth hurts, so be it. For example, Real Jobs NC paid for a mailer advertisement that said, “Democrat State Representative Alice Underhill Voted to spend $2.7 Million on Polar Bears.” The purpose was to inform and let the citizens decided if they approved of her decision. The ad clearly states the ad was not authorized by a candidate. Thank God, citizens are finally getting tired of the blame game and realize that excessive spending at the local, state, and federal level must stop. We simply cannot afford it.
We have three candidates running in the race for the N.C. House of Representative District 3 seat. Democrat Alice Underhill is the incumbent who has served three terms in the General Assembly. Underhill stated that her “most important single accomplishment, working with Rep. William Wainwright, is helping to secure funds for the N.C. History Education Center at Tryon Palace.” OK. Let’s review her complete voting record before we cast our ballot, shall we?
Candidate Norman Sanderson defines himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” A businessman and former Deputy Sheriff in Pamlico County, Sanderson wants to bring focus on the needs of our citizens, reduce government spending, and balance the budget. He is not a career politician. He’s a citizen, like you and me, standing up and saying, “Enough is enough — I want to be a part of re-establishing conservative values and fiscal responsibility in our state.” I like the sound of that, thank you.
Candidate Herb Sobel is a Libertarian who believes, “We are in for a long, cold, dark period. I hope we still have enough freedom at the end to turn back these kinds of political systems that create a very difficult climate for people to prosper.” Give me positive and common sense thinking, please.
When individuals see a wrong being committed it is their duty to assist. It’s no different with politics. Individuals are allowed to contribute $4,000 per election. Corporations are prohibited from contributing money to a candidate. Believe it or not, it’s difficult raising money to run for an elected office. Since when is donating to a political candidate immoral or illegal? It is our civic duty to donate time and money to the candidates we choose to support and to the candidates we believe will help our state and country. When will we be accused of buying our way into heaven by donating and volunteering our time and money to our churches and synagogues? Hmm? Can’t have it both ways, you know?
Remember this, crucifying Pope, Biggs, Eshleman, AFP, and Real Jobs NC for reporting on Alice Underhill’s record and by reverse extension endorsing Norman Sanderson is not a reportable offense. If it is, then let’s attack the millions of individuals who donate time and money to their candidates. Go after them all — go ahead but beware of the backlash.
Cheryl Lee Switzer, CCTA MEMBER
New Bern
© Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Washington DC Tea Party
America Votes Election Day Tea Party
Vote like your life depended on it...it does.
Sign Up: http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/
10 Things You Can Do to Help Your Candidate Win
1. Click on the website of 1 (or more) of the 50 candidates and contribute online
2. Make voter canvassing phone calls from your house for 1 of the 50 candidates
3. Drive to the local candidate's offices and physically participate in voter canvas neighborhood walking
4. Drive to your adopted candidate's campaign offices and make phone calls from their centralized phone banks
5. Make Election Day get-out-the-vote phone calls from your house
6. Drive to the local candidate's campaign offices and make Election Day get out the vote in person visits
7. Drive to your adopted candidate's campaign offices and make Election Day get out the vote calls from their centralized phone bank
8. Drive your large car or van to the candidate's campaign offices and be an Election Day poll driver in your vehicle
9. Check your adopted campaigns' Press Releases on their website. Forward recent press releases in your own words or with links or cutting and pasting via FB, Twitter, e-mail.
10. Become a catalyst! Email this website link to 10 friends, and ask them to volunteer for or donate to one or all of these 50 candidates
FOR MORE GO TO WEBSITE:
http://washingtondcteaparty.ning.com/events/america-votes-election-day-tea?rsvpConfirm=1
Carefully select your candidates and support them with everything you have got! Help needed at the Polls for Early Voting and Election Day!Event Description: Top 50 Races That You Can Help To Win
Vote like your life depended on it...it does.
Sign Up: http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/
10 Things You Can Do to Help Your Candidate Win
1. Click on the website of 1 (or more) of the 50 candidates and contribute online
2. Make voter canvassing phone calls from your house for 1 of the 50 candidates
3. Drive to the local candidate's offices and physically participate in voter canvas neighborhood walking
4. Drive to your adopted candidate's campaign offices and make phone calls from their centralized phone banks
5. Make Election Day get-out-the-vote phone calls from your house
6. Drive to the local candidate's campaign offices and make Election Day get out the vote in person visits
7. Drive to your adopted candidate's campaign offices and make Election Day get out the vote calls from their centralized phone bank
8. Drive your large car or van to the candidate's campaign offices and be an Election Day poll driver in your vehicle
9. Check your adopted campaigns' Press Releases on their website. Forward recent press releases in your own words or with links or cutting and pasting via FB, Twitter, e-mail.
10. Become a catalyst! Email this website link to 10 friends, and ask them to volunteer for or donate to one or all of these 50 candidates
FOR MORE GO TO WEBSITE:
http://washingtondcteaparty.ning.com/events/america-votes-election-day-tea?rsvpConfirm=1
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Obama directs $4.5M to Democratic campaigns
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117835-obama-directs-45-million-to-aid-democratic-campaigns
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/117835-obama-directs-45-million-to-aid-democratic-campaigns
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tea Party Reviews of Candidates! Greene Tea Party, NC
Tea Party Reviews of Candidates! We are reviewing each of the candidates, comparing them to the Tea Party values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. Here are a couple - more will be at the breakfast and more are coming soon.
Ashley Woolard in 2min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsSA4L1BmRk
Van Braxton in 2min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQoMlngiq2I
Kinston's ENC Tea Party is having a Table Talk at the Kozel home.
Go to www.GreeneTeaParty.org for directions or email tea@greeneteaparty.org for directions. One of our own members will be speaking at this event and we expect several Greene County members to
attend.
Ashley Woolard in 2min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsSA4L1BmRk
Van Braxton in 2min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQoMlngiq2I
Kinston's ENC Tea Party is having a Table Talk at the Kozel home.
Go to www.GreeneTeaParty.org for directions or email tea@greeneteaparty.org for directions. One of our own members will be speaking at this event and we expect several Greene County members to
attend.
Friday, July 30, 2010
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
Friday Interview: Taxpayer-Financed Election Campaigns Critiqued
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
July 30, 2010
Daren Bakst
RALEIGH — North Carolina legislators left Raleigh this year without expanding the state’s system of taxpayer-financed election campaigns. But advocates pushed for expansion, and they’re likely to push the idea again in 2011. Before lawmakers left town, Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies, discussed the problems associated with so-called “public financing” of campaigns during an interview with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: This just doesn’t sound right. Let me make sure I understand this. Would this mean that, for example, a progressive, a liberal person, would end up having to help fund the election campaign of a fiscal conservative?
Bakst: Yes. They’d have no choice but to be funding those campaigns.
Martinez: How does this work? What’s written into this bill?
Bakst: Well, what it does is it gives some local governments the option of using public financing, i.e., taxpayer financing, to subsidize candidates for office. So basically these candidates get a lump sum amount of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns. You don’t have a choice about whether or not that taxpayer money, your taxpayer money, is going to candidates you oppose or people who support ideas that you find reprehensible.
Martinez: What would happen if, let’s say, that I’m a taxpayer and I’ve decided for whatever reason that I’m just not interested in politics? I’m not even going to vote.
Bakst: Well, you decide you don’t want to pay taxes, but that wouldn’t be a good idea, so you have no choice.
Martinez: Well, supporters say this would move us toward something they describe as a “clean election system.” They say this will help fend off corruption so that people don’t have to go out and raise a bunch of money on their own. Valid? Or not?
Bakst: Well, the problem is, first of all I want to clear up [that] this entire system is almost certainly unconstitutional. And I won’t get into the constitutional analysis, but two federal District Courts recently have struck down these types of taxpayer financing systems, and I think certainly this would be found unconstitutional.
Martinez: What is the basis — for those of us who aren’t attorneys — the basis for striking that down?
Bakst: Well, the way it works is that the systems try to equalize the funding between candidates. So, if Candidate A, who is not taking taxpayer dollars, spends, say, $100,000, and they set a threshold limit of $95,000, and if you spend beyond $95,000, any additional amount beyond that goes to the opponent. So if I spent $5,000 above a threshold amount, the candidate that takes the taxpayer dollars gets $5,000 to equalize the funding between the candidates.
But as a result, if I’m the candidate who knows that I’m going to give $5,000 to my opponent, what am I going to do? Well, I’m not going to engage in speech. And what it does is, that is exactly what happens. It chills free speech because you don’t want to engage in speech if you’re going to help your opponent. And that’s why, primarily, they are being struck down.
Martinez: There are some candidates, and I have read about them and heard about them, who really like this idea of publicly financed campaigns. They don’t want to go out and raise money. But raising money, the folks on the other side say, is part of the whole process of vetting the ideas in the marketplace.
Bakst: Well, when you say the other side, I think you mean my side.
Martinez: Exactly.
Bakst: Right, absolutely. You know this idea that fundraising is somehow evil or is bad, well, fundraising is an essential part of the political process. That is how we determine whether or not somebody is a legitimate candidate. That is part of the process. Of course a lot of candidates don’t want to raise money. Why should they have to try to actually get support when they can take your taxpayer dollars and, you know, they can sit around and drink pina coladas.
Martinez: Interesting. You know over in Chapel Hill in Orange County, they actually had a pilot program with public financing of local election campaigns. This took place last fall. There’s been some interesting reaction to how that worked. What’s your take on what happened in Chapel Hill?
Bakst: You know, proponents of taxpayer financing can’t get their stories right. On the state level, they argue, “Oh, see the program works because so many people participate in taxpayer financing programs.” Well, of course people participate because if you’re going to punish a candidate for not participating so severely, you have no choice but to participate.
But then in Chapel Hill, what happened was only a couple of candidates participated, and most of the candidates didn’t participate. So it was kind of tricky for them. “We can’t argue that a lot of candidates participated.” What they did was to show that the candidate that did participate won. Well, that doesn’t show that the system works because a candidate won. … It doesn’t do anything as it relates to taxpayer financing. As for politicians, of course they love it, also not only because they get to sit around and hang out and listen to Jimmy Buffett and drink pina coladas, they…
Martinez: Who wouldn’t want that?
Bakst: Right. Who wouldn’t want to do that? You know, what’s important is, if they’re incumbents, it helps them because if you have equalized funding between candidates, incumbents are always going to benefit because they have better name recognition. So the only way for the challenger to overcome that advantage is to spend more money.
And the idea that more money somehow is bad for the system is incorrect. We need money to kind of get the message out there. It’s not just spending money; it’s about getting the message out. People become more informed about the campaigns, not to mention these systems only deal with direct contributions to these campaigns. It doesn’t deal with independent expenditures or other types of spending. So it’s not decreasing the total amount of spending in these campaigns — only one type of spending, basically.
Martinez: This issue of public financing of campaigns at the local level is one that’s probably going to be coming up. So if I’m a citizen out in the community and I know that my local government entity is talking about this, what questions should I be prodding them to ask as they consider this?
Bakst: Mr. Politician, Mrs. Politician, do you believe in political welfare? Do you believe that you should be taking our hard-earned dollars away from critical issues such as safety — if it was on the county level, from schools, maybe roads — and instead giving it to you for your personal benefit so that you can run your campaign so you don’t actually have to get out and actually raise money on your own? Is that really what you think our tax dollars are for — for your benefit? That would be one good question. Also, do you respect the United States Constitution? Because almost certainly, these systems are unconstitutional.
Martinez: What we’re talking about is doing this at the local level, but North Carolina does engage in public financing of campaigns a couple of different ways. Tell us what they are. One is judicial races.
Bakst: Judicial races — appellate judicial races — and also three Council of State races, which means the Commissioner of Insurance and a couple of other positions.
Martinez: There is somewhat of a push, by some folks at least, to fund more Council of State campaigns this way.
Bakst: Absolutely. I mean, look, the goal for people that support clean elections is to have clean elections for every race. What’s interesting is that the State of Arizona, where clean elections kind of started — one of the states — there’s tons of corruption. Because what happens is people game the system and they will figure out ways to trigger these kind of funds that I was talking about — these matching funds — to the candidate. So I’ll run an ad that actually hurts a particular candidate as opposed to helping and gives the impression that it is helping. Then it triggers money to the other candidate that I actually support. So there’s lots of gamesmanship. There’s lots of corruption in those systems as well. So it’s not getting rid of corruption.
Money isn’t bad in the system. There are many other alternatives. And also, we need to do things that are actually consistent with the Constitution. The other thing — final point — taxpayers simply don’t support these systems. On the tax returns in the state, you … can check off a little box. Only about 7 percent or 8 percent of taxpayers have checked off that box to support public financing
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6670
JLF legal expert explains how matching-funds provisions chill free speech
July 30, 2010
Daren Bakst
RALEIGH — North Carolina legislators left Raleigh this year without expanding the state’s system of taxpayer-financed election campaigns. But advocates pushed for expansion, and they’re likely to push the idea again in 2011. Before lawmakers left town, Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies, discussed the problems associated with so-called “public financing” of campaigns during an interview with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: This just doesn’t sound right. Let me make sure I understand this. Would this mean that, for example, a progressive, a liberal person, would end up having to help fund the election campaign of a fiscal conservative?
Bakst: Yes. They’d have no choice but to be funding those campaigns.
Martinez: How does this work? What’s written into this bill?
Bakst: Well, what it does is it gives some local governments the option of using public financing, i.e., taxpayer financing, to subsidize candidates for office. So basically these candidates get a lump sum amount of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns. You don’t have a choice about whether or not that taxpayer money, your taxpayer money, is going to candidates you oppose or people who support ideas that you find reprehensible.
Martinez: What would happen if, let’s say, that I’m a taxpayer and I’ve decided for whatever reason that I’m just not interested in politics? I’m not even going to vote.
Bakst: Well, you decide you don’t want to pay taxes, but that wouldn’t be a good idea, so you have no choice.
Martinez: Well, supporters say this would move us toward something they describe as a “clean election system.” They say this will help fend off corruption so that people don’t have to go out and raise a bunch of money on their own. Valid? Or not?
Bakst: Well, the problem is, first of all I want to clear up [that] this entire system is almost certainly unconstitutional. And I won’t get into the constitutional analysis, but two federal District Courts recently have struck down these types of taxpayer financing systems, and I think certainly this would be found unconstitutional.
Martinez: What is the basis — for those of us who aren’t attorneys — the basis for striking that down?
Bakst: Well, the way it works is that the systems try to equalize the funding between candidates. So, if Candidate A, who is not taking taxpayer dollars, spends, say, $100,000, and they set a threshold limit of $95,000, and if you spend beyond $95,000, any additional amount beyond that goes to the opponent. So if I spent $5,000 above a threshold amount, the candidate that takes the taxpayer dollars gets $5,000 to equalize the funding between the candidates.
But as a result, if I’m the candidate who knows that I’m going to give $5,000 to my opponent, what am I going to do? Well, I’m not going to engage in speech. And what it does is, that is exactly what happens. It chills free speech because you don’t want to engage in speech if you’re going to help your opponent. And that’s why, primarily, they are being struck down.
Martinez: There are some candidates, and I have read about them and heard about them, who really like this idea of publicly financed campaigns. They don’t want to go out and raise money. But raising money, the folks on the other side say, is part of the whole process of vetting the ideas in the marketplace.
Bakst: Well, when you say the other side, I think you mean my side.
Martinez: Exactly.
Bakst: Right, absolutely. You know this idea that fundraising is somehow evil or is bad, well, fundraising is an essential part of the political process. That is how we determine whether or not somebody is a legitimate candidate. That is part of the process. Of course a lot of candidates don’t want to raise money. Why should they have to try to actually get support when they can take your taxpayer dollars and, you know, they can sit around and drink pina coladas.
Martinez: Interesting. You know over in Chapel Hill in Orange County, they actually had a pilot program with public financing of local election campaigns. This took place last fall. There’s been some interesting reaction to how that worked. What’s your take on what happened in Chapel Hill?
Bakst: You know, proponents of taxpayer financing can’t get their stories right. On the state level, they argue, “Oh, see the program works because so many people participate in taxpayer financing programs.” Well, of course people participate because if you’re going to punish a candidate for not participating so severely, you have no choice but to participate.
But then in Chapel Hill, what happened was only a couple of candidates participated, and most of the candidates didn’t participate. So it was kind of tricky for them. “We can’t argue that a lot of candidates participated.” What they did was to show that the candidate that did participate won. Well, that doesn’t show that the system works because a candidate won. … It doesn’t do anything as it relates to taxpayer financing. As for politicians, of course they love it, also not only because they get to sit around and hang out and listen to Jimmy Buffett and drink pina coladas, they…
Martinez: Who wouldn’t want that?
Bakst: Right. Who wouldn’t want to do that? You know, what’s important is, if they’re incumbents, it helps them because if you have equalized funding between candidates, incumbents are always going to benefit because they have better name recognition. So the only way for the challenger to overcome that advantage is to spend more money.
And the idea that more money somehow is bad for the system is incorrect. We need money to kind of get the message out there. It’s not just spending money; it’s about getting the message out. People become more informed about the campaigns, not to mention these systems only deal with direct contributions to these campaigns. It doesn’t deal with independent expenditures or other types of spending. So it’s not decreasing the total amount of spending in these campaigns — only one type of spending, basically.
Martinez: This issue of public financing of campaigns at the local level is one that’s probably going to be coming up. So if I’m a citizen out in the community and I know that my local government entity is talking about this, what questions should I be prodding them to ask as they consider this?
Bakst: Mr. Politician, Mrs. Politician, do you believe in political welfare? Do you believe that you should be taking our hard-earned dollars away from critical issues such as safety — if it was on the county level, from schools, maybe roads — and instead giving it to you for your personal benefit so that you can run your campaign so you don’t actually have to get out and actually raise money on your own? Is that really what you think our tax dollars are for — for your benefit? That would be one good question. Also, do you respect the United States Constitution? Because almost certainly, these systems are unconstitutional.
Martinez: What we’re talking about is doing this at the local level, but North Carolina does engage in public financing of campaigns a couple of different ways. Tell us what they are. One is judicial races.
Bakst: Judicial races — appellate judicial races — and also three Council of State races, which means the Commissioner of Insurance and a couple of other positions.
Martinez: There is somewhat of a push, by some folks at least, to fund more Council of State campaigns this way.
Bakst: Absolutely. I mean, look, the goal for people that support clean elections is to have clean elections for every race. What’s interesting is that the State of Arizona, where clean elections kind of started — one of the states — there’s tons of corruption. Because what happens is people game the system and they will figure out ways to trigger these kind of funds that I was talking about — these matching funds — to the candidate. So I’ll run an ad that actually hurts a particular candidate as opposed to helping and gives the impression that it is helping. Then it triggers money to the other candidate that I actually support. So there’s lots of gamesmanship. There’s lots of corruption in those systems as well. So it’s not getting rid of corruption.
Money isn’t bad in the system. There are many other alternatives. And also, we need to do things that are actually consistent with the Constitution. The other thing — final point — taxpayers simply don’t support these systems. On the tax returns in the state, you … can check off a little box. Only about 7 percent or 8 percent of taxpayers have checked off that box to support public financing
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6670
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
