Candidate Debate
March 20^th, 2010

Lighthouse Convention Center
326 Tryon Road
Raleigh, NC  27603

NCFreedom is sponsoring three candidate debates for the United States House of Representatives in Raleigh on March 20^th. Each of the debates will have a separate format that has been agreed upon prior to the event. All questions that are used in the debate will be submitted by people using the links shown below. Please limit your questions to areas that pertain to federal issues. Questions that a representative would not be able to address if elected will not be considered.

2^nd District Republican Primary Candidate Debate

The debate will start at 1:00 PM with the following candidates participating:

                        Frank Deatrich
                        Renee Ellmers
                        Todd Gailas

This debate will be moderated by Frank Ragsdale.

The questions for this debate can be submitted by clicking here:

4th District Republican Primary Candidate Debate

The debate will start at 3:00 PM with the following candidates participating:

                        David Burnett
                        BJ Lawson
                        Frank Roche

This debate will be moderated by Dr. Ada Fisher.

The questions for this debate can be submitted here:

13th District Republican Primary Candidate Debate

The debate will start at 5:00 PM with the following candidates participating:

                        Dan Huffman
                        Frank Hurley
                        Bill Randall
                        Bernie Reeves

The questions for this debate can be submitted here:

This debate will be moderated by Jeff Aydelette.

The last speaker for this event will be Eddie Burks starting at 7:00 PM. Mr. Burks is one of the Republican primary candidates running for the United States Senate seat.

Media Passes

All media will be issued press passes prior to March 20th.  Please submit all requests to Media@NCFreedom.us to validate your creditials. No video recording equipment will be allowed in the convention hall without a press pass.

Current Sponsors:

NCFreedom
FairTax
Todd Gailas
B.J. Lawson
Robin and Hans Mentha
Frank Roche
WhatBubbaKnows.net

Sponsorships are available for $50. This entitles a sponsor to a table at the event.

Here’s a refresher on the 10 Worst Provisions in this bill (H.R. 3590):

1) Spends Way Too Much: $2.5 trillion over the first ten years that the plan is fully implemented

2) Raises Taxes During a Recession: Hikes taxes $493 billion with new levies on so-called “Cadillac” plans, a new Medicare payroll tax on higher-income earners, and taxes on health insurance and drug manufacturing companies, which are sure to be passed on consumers in the form of higher premiums

3) Individual Mandate: Requires individuals to carry health insurance or exacts a fine up to $750

4) Business Burdens: taxes employers with more than 50 full-time workers if they are not offered insurance. CBO estimates employers would opt to drop as many as 5 million workers from private insurance, and pay the fine instead of maintaining current coverage

5) Huge Medicaid Expansion: an estimated 40 percent expansion of the entitlement program would greatly increase costs for government and taxpayers. States would be forced to manage the increased load. However, the federal government would pick up a large share of the new cost

6) Insurance Companies can still Limit Benefits: Although one of the prime reasons for this entire effort was to force insurance companies to live up to their commitments, the Senate bill would only ban lifetime-benefit caps. Insurance companies can still invoke yearly limits that will have essentially the same effect

7) Bad for Seniors: Cuts $120 billion from Medicare Advantage, which CBO says will result in fewer seniors with access to vision, dental and flu shots. Ultimately, up to 2.6 million seniors could lose their Medicare Advantage coverage

More Bureaucracy: Creates comparative effectiveness panels, a Medicare Advisory Board and a Health Care Commissioner, all of whom would be responsible for oversight of the greatly-expanded government role in health care and invoking rationing in attempts to contain cost

9) Doesn’t Tackle Tort Reform: Despite the president’s commitment to lower medical liability costs, the bill only contains a “Sense of Senate” provision, with no real reforms that could save up to $54 billion over ten years

10) Auto-Enrollment: Businesses with more than 200 workers will be required to automatically enroll employees in health coverage

from www.americansforprosperity.org

Print this to take with you to the “Seeing Red” rally on Thursday at 11:30 at Bob Etheridge’s office in Raleigh at 333 Fayetteville Street.  We have been informed that Obama’s “Organizing For America” will be there to protest our rally.

I was more than a bit surprised when I received the following response back from an old friend that I have not seen in many years:

“Have to tell you that I am somewhat in support of governmental healthcare. Part of the governments job is to protect it’s citizens and look out for their welfare. The democrats grabbed a major victory in the last election and with that comes a policy direction for the next 2-4 years. The Republicans better start working to connect back with the American people if they want to continue to direct this country. I wasn’t thrilled with the way things went for the 8 years before Obama.”

Certainly, not everyone will agree with my point-of-view regarding specific Federal policies. However, at what point do we begin to question if the Federal government has overstepped its bounds? Can we have any certainty that our thoughts on a matter are not merely just our opinion with no weight of authority? I questioned for a while if I should respond to this e-mail. While I have not talked to this person in several years due to miles of separation, this person is an old friend, and I did not want to strain that friendship. In the end, I decided that I needed to respond to put forth the truth and hope that this person would at least consider the merits of my argument.

The statement that gave me pause and prompted me to respond was: “Part of the governments job is to protect it’s citizens and look out for their welfare.” After all, that really is the crux of the matter. If that statement defines the job description of the Federal government, well then by all means Congress should pass universal health care and a great many other things for the public good.

The section of the U.S. Constitution cited in defense of this job description of government is found in Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;…” The remainder of Section 8 is then devoted to a laundry list of powers granted to Congress, such as coining and borrowing money, establishing the Postal System, declaring war, raising and supporting an army and navy, etc. From this clause, I can see that the Federal government does have a charge to protect the States and their citizenry from invasion and rebellions by means of an army and navy. However, does “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” include mandating everyone must obtain health insurance or pay a fine; the Federal government can operate a health insurance exchange or simply provide coverage, like Medicare; the Federal government can create a Comparative Effectiveness Research panel to determine which treatments are effective, both from a medical and a cost perspective, regardless of the opinion of the patient or their doctor?

It is odd to me that there is endless debate on this subject when James Madison, Founding Father and one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, has already weighed in on the matter. The reader is doubtless familiar with the Federalist Papers which were penned by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York to encourage them to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Federalist 41 examines this section of the Constitution and addresses some concerns and objections to the powers granted to the Federal government. The final one-fifth of the document addresses objections raised by some who construed the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause to mean that the new Congress shall have the right “…to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Thus, Congress would simply need to state that a piece of legislation is needed to provide for the general welfare, and Congress would instantly have jurisdiction in the matter. We should all reacquaint ourselves with this document, but especially this final one-fifth. Madison declares these objectors’ arguments to be baseless. He states that “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…” In other words, if the Constitution did not contain a listing of defined and enumerated powers directly following the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause, separated only by a semicolon, then the objectors might have had a point. Madison then asks the question: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” He then explains: “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.” In other words, the “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” clause is bounded by the enumerated powers defined directly following the clause. This point of view is further bolstered by the final clause of Article 1, Section 8 which reads: “And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Thus, all laws created by the Congress must in some way pertain to the defined and enumerated powers listed previously in this section or that are elsewhere granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, including in the Amendments.

In the days of our Founding there were doctors and patients. As with any other individual, doctors would have needed to charge for their services to provide for the necessities of life. Yet our Founding Fathers did not see the need to regulate how much could or should be charged for such services, and they did not include having ones medical expenses paid for by others as a right, though the Founders could have easily done so through the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to mandate that a citizen must purchase a product, not even medical expense insurance. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to decide what medical treatment is necessary and proper. Nowhere in the Constitution did the States grant the Federal government the authority to collect taxes from one to pay for the medical expenses of another.

I do not say these things to be insensitive or because I do not care about the hardships of others. I absolutely do care, and as a Christian I believe that Christians have been charged by God to care for the fatherless, the widows, our elders, the sick. However, that charge belongs to the Body of Christ, not to the government. From a legal perspective, I believe that any social or corporate welfare is unconstitutional and is a form of “soft” tyranny, as the government, without the consent of the governed, must take from one to give to another. From a spiritual perspective, I believe that social welfare from the government usurps the spiritual authority of the Church. It is the blessing of the Body of Christ, synagogues, mosques, and community organizations to provide charity in their local communities, apart from the Federal government.

So, what then is the job of our Federal government? Our Founders were well acquainted with tyrannical forms of government. A tyrant dispenses and revokes the liberties of the people according to his own pleasure. Our Founders understood that true rights are innate. Therefore, they cannot be granted or revoked by any mortal power. The job of just government then is to make secure those rights. That is the job description our Founding Fathers ascribed to government in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Since the Federal government is already involved in the health care industry through onerous regulations, Medicare, subsidies to the Medicaid system of the States, what does any of this matter? John Adams penned the phrase “a government of laws and not of men.” Are we still a nation of laws, or are we ruled by the emotional feelings, the passions, of the moment; the fairness of a thing? I believe that is a question that America must ask itself. For a long time now, we have strayed from our Constitutional foundations. We must decide to either right ourselves back on that foundation, amend the Constitution to reflect what we now believe to be good government and repeat again when we once again disagree, or destroy our foundation and start over with something new, perhaps socialism or fascism would be more to the peoples’ liking. If we choose the later two, then America is headed for dark days and posterity will be slaves to the debt of ours and future generations. The exceptional America once described by Alexis de Tocqueville will cease to exist. If we decide to be a nation of laws, then we will have the opportunity to once again enjoy the Liberty that has been granted us by God.

A North Carolina school system voted to ditch a longstanding controversial policy of busing children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve diversity, WRAL.com reported Wednesday.

 A North Carolina school system voted to ditch a longstanding controversial policy of busing children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve diversity.

The first debate for the 2^nd district starts at 1:00 PM.

• Frank Deatrich
• Renee Ellmers
• Todd Gailas 

The second debate for the 4th district starts at 3:00 PM.

• David Burnett
• BJ Lawson
• Frank Roche

 The third debate for the 13th district starts at 5:00 PM.

• Dan Huffman
• Frank Hurley
• Bill Randall
• Bernie Reeves

NCFreedom is strongly encouraging other tea party groups across the state to sponsor primary debates for both parties. Our goal is to provide a non-partisan forum for people to get answers to specific questions in order to make an informed vote.  As I said at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, if anyone votes for a candidate based on an endorsement, they should not be allowed to vote. It is not too much to ask people to vote for the best candidate based on their own research.  I know this sentiment is not shared by many people but I think that the men and women who sacrificed so much to give us liberty would expect no less. 

I am not saying that endorsements are to be ignored. In fact, the Asheville Tea PAC has set the bar for what I consider to be a national model. They have submitted questionnaires to each of the candidates running for the US House of Representatives in District 11. The responses are posted on their site and have been graded based on a set of criteria to validate the results. They are hosting a candidate debate and registered members of their PAC will vote on whom they feel won the debate. The combination of the questionnaires and the people’s votes will determine who their PAC will endorse. An endorsement based on validated graded responses and people’s straw poll results is one that I would take into consideration.

“What are the essential threads of philosophy that bind us in common cause?  What do we believe and how do we make our belief explicit?  Can we state our beliefs so clearly and concisely that they function as a beacon to attract and retain conservative patriots in our cause?”

I wanted us to understand what makes us more alike than different.  I shared my “beliefs” in the post Who Are We? What Holds Us Together? (Part 1, Nov 2009).

The discussion that followed incorporated those beliefs into a set of Principles which were adopted in Article III of our NCFreedom Charter.  As a group we “converge” on Principles.  Principles enable us to establish clarity with regard to contemporary issues.

During the development of the Charter, another important aspect of our human nature surfaced.  We as individuals hold certain Values.  These Values are measures of integrity, attributes of people that are inherently desirable or intrinsically good. 

We adopted the Values established by Benjamin Franklin to measure his own personal evolution.  However, we did not promote a broad dialog to examine how we embrace and rank Values in our lives and our decision processes.  Our failure to fully examine our Values may have been a serious oversight.

As we move from “issues based activism” to the selection and endorsement of candidates this election year, I observe growing discord among individuals and between confederate groups.  People who I deeply respect exhibit behaviors I struggle to understand. 

In my attempt to find motivation behind behaviors, I was drawn to re-examine the Principles and Values in our Charter.  Our “convergence” on Principles does not seem to be at issue, so the Values may hold a clue:

• Industry (persistence, procure wealth)
• Frugality (secure virtue)
• Resolution (personal responsibility)
• Sincerity (reverence, honesty, gratitude)
• Justice (hope)
• Order (consistency)
• Tranquility (patience)
• Moderation
• Temperance
• Humility
• Silence
• Cleanliness
• Chastity
• Courage

Upon reflection, I offer an hypothesis: we each rank Values with different priority. 

I personally rank Resolution, Order and Sincerity very highly.  I will not support a candidate who shirks responsibility, is inconsistent, or appears to compromise integrity – regardless of strength in other areas.

When I look at candidate endorsements made by others, I infer their selection may be the result of differences in priority among the Values.  For example, I believe someone who ranks Industry, Justice and Tranquility among their primary Values would indeed select a different individual as their ideal candidate.

This may be an important insight in our journey of growth and self-knowledge.  While we have converged on Principles, we may never fully converge on Values.  Therefore we should expect strong differences of opinion on candidates.

We must not, however, fall into a trap of elevating Value generated differences to the point where divisiveness might fracture a remarkable coalition of those who have converged on Principles. 

Our Principles will encourage Liberty oriented candidates to present themselves.  Use the political primary process to expose the Values of those candidates to voters.  Candidates of good character will certainly demonstrate strength and balance among Values.  Voters will recognize their strengths, and the primaries will produce good candidates for the election.

Use the list of Values to understand our sometimes perplexing behaviors and coach our candidates during the primaries.  Remember the enemy is Progressivism, not other patriots or other patriot organizations.

Do your part to ensure we “hang together” throughout this important election year.

Look at the proposed budget and the massive increase to Education (although you will see significant decreases to Special Education and Education to the  Disadvantaged)  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html 

Neal McCluskey’s article on nationalizing education http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11240

From the Federal website http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/funding.html:  States are encouraged to develop budgets that match the needs they have outlined in their applications.

TX has opted out as noted here: http://biggovernment.com/bdterry/2010/01/15/texas-is-right-to-quit-the-race-for-the-top-education-program/

NJ has concerns: http://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2010/01/new-jersey-education-association.html

Below is the article from Missouri http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10102:

February 26, 2010 07:15 AM

The Race to the Top (RTTT) education plan currently being pushed by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan should keep its acronym.  What it should be renamed, however, is Race to the Takeover.  This plan is flying under the radar, but it is one of the most “transformational” programs of Obama’s administration.  This mandate will cede sovereignty of the states’ rights to educate Missouri’s children to the federal government.

This mandate involves state education departments submitting grants to the federal government for educational stimulus money.  The grant is $4.3 billion to be divvied up to states for educational programs.  Sounds good, right?  Well, let’s look at what the state of Missouri will give up for this money and scrutinize this proposal.  (The 300 page grant proposal can be accessed here.)

The plan reflects the belief that our schools need to be nudged by “choice architects” (pps 10 and 40) to steer educational choices for our children.  The document was drafted on the basic tenet of this belief held by Cass Sunstein.  This is the recurring theme of the Obama administration.  We, the people, are ill prepared to handle decisions for ourselves and our children.  We need the “nudging” by the government for correct choices.

RTTT will require the redistribution of teachers and principals (pps 13 and 75).  “Highly effective” teachers and principals will be transferred to failing classrooms and schools.  Local districts will have no power for their own staffing.  Curriculum choices and testing protocols will be taken out of local and state control as Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will be decentralized into a regional service center (pg 67).  These decisions will be made by a consortium of states, not by a state board or local district.

Now that you have an idea on what we will give up, what will we gain?  We obviously gain federal control over another aspect of our life.  We gain the possibility of a maximum grant of $250 million for a plan that is projected to cost $390 million (pg 257).  We gain more infrastructure and more staffing requirements which will only be partially funded (pg 19).  We gain an unfunded mandate after four years, as any federal money will be stopped after that time.

I believe there are two impediments to this plan.  It is illegal as it usurps our state sovereignty, and financially, is it unsustainable.  When did it become acceptable or legal for the governor, State Board of Education and school superintendents to sign away our sovereign rights?

Contact these entities and demand they immediately withdraw districts’ applications for RTTT.  Initial grants will be announced in April and secondary grants will be announced in the summer.  If the majority of districts withdraw, the state will withdraw its proposal.  Ninety-nine percent of  Missouri school districts did sign on to this plan, but many district officials complained they were pressured and the document was not ready for review until a few days before the signing deadline in January. 

This proposal is akin to the health care bill.  It was pushed on the parties in a rush and it is filled with vagueness on specifics.  The one certainty in this proposal is the total control of the federal government.  Does that sound familiar?  Once again, the parents and taxpayers were left out of this proposal.  As you read through the document, you should note that parents are mentioned twice in 300 pages.  In fact, the “actors” who will drive this reform are: individuals (students, teachers, principals); education organizations (unions, reform organizations); and educational institutions (pg 11). 

An aside, since when are reform organizations considered as an “education organization” and specifically, what reform groups are driving this proposal?  You, as a parent, are not considered as an important aspect in your child’s education.  Perhaps you are considered nothing more than the entity paying for this plan.

Missourians must demand the legislators not release any funds received for these mandates.  Our legislators took an oath to protect our state sovereignty and we must demand they not accept any of these stimulus monies.  The strings are too tight and they will strangle educational choices for our children.  Contact your representative and senator and tell them NO.  No more federal control over our daily lives.  No to budgets we can’t sustain.  No to spending of our tax dollars for a program that circumvented the legislative process.

Reclaim our sovereignty.  Refuse RTTT—Race to the Takeover.

February 19, 2010

Dear Mr. Stoddard:

 Thank you for contacting me regarding the constitutionality of health insurance reform legislation.  I appreciate knowing of your concerns.

 As you know, Congress is currently working on legislation to reform the health insurance industry.  The opponents of reform have sought to kill the legislation by claiming, among other things, that it is unconstitutional.  They base this claim on the fact that the Constitution does not expressly give Congress the authority to regulate health insurance or health care; therefore, they conclude, any effort to do so must be unconstitutional.  That is simply not the case. 

 Since the health insurance and health care systems did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, their absence from the document cannot be viewed as a deliberate omission.  The Founding Fathers wisely recognized that they could not predict the future, and they sought to write a governing document for our nation that could withstand the test of time.  One such example of their foresight is reflected in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”  The Supreme Court has interpreted these powers to include efforts to “insure domestic Tranquility . . . [and] promote the general Welfare,” which are referenced in the Preamble, and has found federal health care initiatives to be consistent with this authority. 

 Opponents of reform also have questioned the bill’s requirement that individuals take responsibility for their health care by maintaining health insurance, charging that it violates the principle of individual liberty.  I believe it does just the opposite.  Health insurance is much like automobile insurance.  We need it because, when unforeseen things happen, it is unfair to force someone else to pick up the tab.  Under the current health care system, hospitals are providing billions of dollars annually in care to the uninsured, and everyone who has insurance is paying higher premiums as a result.  In my view, that constitutes a significant infringement on the individual liberty of the insured, which the bill would correct.

 Note that whether to obtain insurance would still be a matter of choice.  One choosing not to over himself would simply pay an excise tax to cover the costs to the insured populations should he have to utilize the system.

 I hope this information is helpful to you.  Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep me informed of your views on issues before the Congress.

 Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress

Is that too much to ask for?

Our Mission is Finally Accomplished… Anyone Care?

The firefight ebbs. The mortar fire ceases. A few last stray rounds streak past. A cry from behind causes me to turn. Lying in the road is a young Iraqi woman. I run over to help. She’s caught a round just below her temple. Her stunning beauty has been ruined forever.

She cries, “Paper! Paper” over and over until the ambulance arrives to take her away. An old lady emerges from the schoolhouse-turned voting site, sheets of blue paper in hand. She gives one to the wounded girl, who clutches it to her like a prized possession even as the ambulance carries her away.

The ballot was her voice. All she wanted was a chance to exercise it, just once, before she died.

…

That young woman wanted nothing else than the chance to explore her newfound freedom. She didn’t beg for help, or plead for her life. Voting would become her final act. In that moment, she matched our own sacrifices.
Our friends died to secure this day. And here on this road in Diyala, I saw proof that the blood spilled in this backward country had value. It made the cause noble and just. This may not mean much to someone who stands in opposition to our fight, but it is the legacy of our fallen. The honor of their sacrifice.

Republicans are not going to give  a single vote for a tax increase. Not only would this violate a commitment most made to the people who elected them, it would be politically suicidal. For behind the GOP today, and its best hope of recapturing Congress in 2010, are the tea-party irregulars.

And tea partiers now play the role of Red Army commissars who sat at machine guns behind their own troops to shoot down any soldier who retreated or ran. Republicans who sign on to tax hikes cannot go home again.

A year ago on February 18th, 2009, the first call for tea parties was made by Rick Santelli. What a difference one year makes. A conservative author and political figure compares people who are standing up to defend the Constitution and the very future of our country to Communist mass murderers. I doubt he is implying that a Republican who votes for a tax hike cannot return to his home for fear of his life. However, I don’t see another meaning in the context of the previous sentence.

Tea-party irregulars? I guess any label will do these days. I have been called a 912er, tea partier, conservative, racist, Nazi and other labels in the past year. I prefer American patriot. There is no mistaking the meaning of this “label”.

As the politicians work to get elected or reelected in November across the country, they need to admit that the time for partisan fighting is over if the country is to survive.  They already know the state of the union. Hard decisions should have already been made by Congress. The rapidly fading political capital of a failed presidency cannot stop Congress from doing the job for which they are so handsomely paid.