Lawson for Liberty

Welcome to the Campaign Blog at lawsonforcongress.com. (In case you’re as new to blogs as I was earlier this year, the word “blog” is a contraction for “Web log”.) My campaign blog exists to discuss important issues with my fellow Americans, and chronicle the adventures of a non-politician running for political office.

I’ve watched many politicians create “blogs” that are just a place for pasting press releases. Press releases tend to ignore the deeper context around issues, and generally do not spark discussion. Right now we desperately need to engage in thoughtful dialog. I take this discussion seriously, and hope you will too.

You can just start reading below, or using the navigation bar on the left, select a Recent Post, view posts by Category, or use the search box to find posts by specific words. Please join our conversation as we restore a Constitutional federal government.

You must be kidding me.

I first started studying how Washington works when I was in medical training, back when HIPAA was being born. Remember HIPAA? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? As I watched Congress empower unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists to share my protected health information with anyone having a financial interest in my care, “You must be kidding me” became a regular refrain.

But then I discovered a much more serious medical problem in Washington. Despite the fact that Congress loves providing drugs for our senior citizens, even at risk of national bankruptcy, they have thus far failed to diagnose or treat their own illness: Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder, or LADD.

The most common symptom of LADD is failure to focus on a single topic when creating legislation. Instead, legislators become excited when reading legislation that is likely to pass. As a result of this excitement, their minds begin wandering to the grab bag of promises they have made to special interests. In the final stages, this inability to concentrate on the legislation’s original topic culminates in spasmodic and capricious additions and amendments that are completely unrelated, dangerous, and costly.

Today’s example is typical: Senator Dianne Feinstein added an amnesty provision for up to 1.35 million illegal agricultural workers to an Iraq supplemental appropriations bill:

At today’s markup of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee committed an outrageous act of disrespect for our men and women in uniform and to the citizens of this country by adopting an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that gives amnesty to illegal-alien agricultural workers. The copy of the amendment obtained by NumbersUSA indicates a maximum of 1.35 million illegal aliens, plus their families, could obtain “emergency agricultural worker status” for a five-year period. However, the amendment also provides for an adjustment of status, which paves the way for permanent legalization.

You must be kidding me.

Folks, this is just plain bad government. Unfortunately, it’s up to you to fight back. Regardless of your stance on the Iraq war or illegal immigration, is it appropriate for legislators to hijack legislation in this fashion? Shouldn’t we insist that our legislators embrace common sense, and limit legislation to one subject at a time so votes can accurately reflect the opinions of our elected representatives?

Please, help restore common sense to Washington. I have three requests:

1. Visit NumbersUSA to learn more about this affront to good government, and how to contact your Senators today to fight this back-door attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens. As NumbersUSA notes, there is no need for amnesty for agricultural workers — there already is an H-2A foreign agricultural worker program that provides growers with unlimited temporary workers.
2. To address the broader problem of LADD, learn about the One Subject at a Time Act, which requires Congress to limit legislation to a single subject. I support the One Subject at a Time Act, along with the Enumerated Powers Act, Read the Bills Act, and Write the Laws Act, as nonpartisan “good government” reforms that would drastically improve our legislative honesty and effectiveness.
3. Donate today to our Congressional campaign. In the week since the primary, I have been focused almost entirely on fundraising. We are preparing a large, targeted mailing and need your immediate help today!

Howdy, y’all! I’m the new blogger for Lawson for Congress. My name is Paige Michael-Shetley, and I am the Youth Coordinator for the campaign. I will be a contributor to the blog on as frequent of a basis as I can. I will mainly be making posts related to economics (my specialty) and abstract philosophy, but occasionally I will meander into other areas.

For my first post, I would like to recycle a post I made on my own blog, Liberty Republicans, a few months ago. (Note: Posts I make on that website represent only my own views, not necessarily those of B.J.) This is a post of which I am particularly proud, and I think all of us who are engaged in political could do quite well to give it a read and take its lessons to heart.

One of the unfortunate realities of today’s political environment is the fixation on the idea of a divide between two groups: the Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of a society that cherishes competition (and God knows how much I cherish competition myself), but it is unfortunate that we should prioritize association with these identities and the clash between them to the point where we treat the situation the same as Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Or, to use an example with more local and personal relevance, Carolina vs. The University of New Jersey at Durham.) But rarely is the question ever asked: what does it truly mean to be conservative or a liberal?

As one studies political philosophy extensively, one finds that the labels “conservative” and “liberal” typically do not describe an unmistakably clear set of policy positions. It is often the case that “hyphenation” of these terms develops: the segmentation of these groups into certain subgroups.

For instance, the term “paleoconservative” is used to describe conservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety: protectionist, isolationist, culturally conservative, fiscally conservative, and pro-civil liberties. This is in contrast to the “neoconservatives,” as represented by the Bush Administration, who generally favor trade benefiting special interests, military interventionism, restriction of civil liberties in the name of security, and are not as concerned with fiscal restraint, favoring “supply-side” ideas about taxes and tolerating the growth of the welfare state. However, even within these subgroups there can exist substantive disagreement on certain issues.

For example, in the paleoconservative tent, there can be a disagreement over what role the federal government should play in regulating cultural matters. Typically, paleoconservatives tend to support adherence to federalism, whereas some, like Buchanan, tend to favor a more activist approach using the federal government to preserve traditional culture. Furthermore, within the neoconservative tent, an issue of considerable divide tends to be immigration, with those such as President Bush and Senator John McCain favoring less restrictive immigration policies, while others like Duncan Hunter favoring more restrictive policies. One achieves a similar analysis when observing liberalism.

So, what do the terms “conservative” and “liberal” really mean in the realm of politics? I contend that they mean exactly what they mean in every other realm of life. From a search on Merriam Webster online, one finds this definition of “conservative“:

3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

As for liberalism? Well, quite a few ideas come to light here:

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Thinking about these definitions of “conservative” and “liberal,” can you unmistakably pin down someone’s position on any issue whatsoever when they possess conservative or liberal attitudes and/or world views? Let’s take, for instance, the Bush tax cuts. By these definitions, one who is a “conservative” may have objected to them on the grounds that they would produce large deficits, if conservatism is indeed “marked by moderation or caution.” On the other hand, one could view the tax cuts as quite a liberal policy, given that they were “provided in a generous and openhanded way.” In fact, an analogous situation occurred in the 1960s: conservatives in Congress opposed the tax cut proposals of the Johnson Administration, an administration that history has tended to label as the poster-child of American liberalism, on the fear that they would produce large deficits. Instead of this scenario playing out in 2001 and 2003 when the tax debates came up, we have seen the exact opposite situation: the tax cuts were linked to the “conservative” position, while opposition to them was considered the “liberal” position.

It appears, therefore, that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are rather useless for defining consistent and predictable sets of political positions. Instead, these labels describe attitudes and the psychological approach through which one arrives at positions. Conservatives value adhering to tradition, caution, and restraint from radical change. Liberals value anti-orthodoxy and generosity, and they tend to possess more lax attitudes toward society and to react more favorably to change. What it all boils down to is that the individual who possesses these attitudes is ultimately the authority over what positions they take based on these attitudes and their own understanding of issues.

Hence, we have arrived at the source of the division in our political system. It is precisely because we in society seek so firmly to establish a form of team sport in politics, with the “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” where we view politicos and voters as members of these two teams and cheer them on as they take on our opponents, that we have established this rigid division in our political system and our society as a whole. Identity politics, and particularly party politics, is a particularly divisive and destructive form of collectivism that suggests we maintain loyalty to groups rather than loyalty to our own attitudes, world-views, and unique conclusions on policy positions. It is only when we begin to view ourselves and each other as individuals with unique perspectives, and understand what is truly meant by the terms “conservative” and “liberal,” that we can end the division of today and conduct ourselves with the primary motivation of what is best for our country.

Our three children are not economists, but they understand that going shopping with $14 means that they can’t afford something that costs $16. There’s simply not enough money.

David Price, however, has built a legislative career embracing the “gimme now” philosophy: if you can’t afford it, simply borrow and print the dollars necessary to make up the difference.

Two months ago, Rep. Price voted in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 312, which is a planning document that sets priorities for discretionary spending and annual budgeting over the next five years. This budgetary plan projects federal income of $14 trillion, yet plans to spend $16 trillion.

And that missing $2 trillion? More debt.

It’s been said that failing to plan is planning to fail. Our legislators are not failing to plan, however, they’re just flat-out planning to fail. In fact, they’re so committed to failing, that they even celebrate the fact that they’re completely divorced from reality. Here’s Rep. Price’s statement on this particular vote:

“This budget is a clear reflection of our priorities to build a stronger economy, keep our communities safe, and to do both in a fiscally responsible way,” Price said. “After President Bush and the Republican Congress turned projected surpluses into record deficits, this Congress is committed to reversing the damage.

Let’s see if I understand: throw some divisive partisan rhetoric out there, and claim that our massive fiscal irresponsibility is actually “responsible”. If we claim that we’re “reversing the damage”, perhaps we’ll escape blame for the inevitable damage that results when we can’t find foreigners willing to buy this next $2 trillion in debt.

The good news for our country, and our future, is that the people are beginning to discover the truth. It’s not a partisan issue — with gas prices and grocery bills heading up, people are beginning to understand that there are real consequences with the federal government borrowing and printing all this money. Yes, that’s right — when the government creates new money to pay for spending we can’t afford, the dollars you earn and save are less valuable due to the inflation our government itself creates.

It’s time to reject the “gimme now” school of economics. Our children deserve better, and David Price needs to understand that his well-meaning but misguided attempts to “help” are only making things worse for working Americans.

We simply can’t afford The Price.

This fascinating article on Politico outlines the pessimism that Newt Gingrich, Tom Cole, and other Republican leaders feel going into the November elections:

Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s money.

The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party’s electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins’ loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in “everybody for himself” mode.

“There is an attitude that, ‘I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,’” the member said. “There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together.”

In a piece published in Human Events, the Republicans’ onetime captain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned his old colleagues that they face “real disaster” on Election Day unless they move immediately to “chart a bold course of real reform” for the country.

Wait, Newt. You’re looking for a “bold course of real reform”? Perhaps a “Contract with America”? Hey — I’ve got a great idea. Excuse me for being presumptuous, and I don’t pretend to be an experienced politician, but we’ve already got a contract with America: it’s called our United States Constitution.

In fact, I’ve been running a grassroots, insurgent Congressional campaign based entirely on limiting our federal government to its intended Constitutional scope, restoring fiscal sanity, restoring our civil liberties, ending the occupation of Iraq, pursuing a just and affordable foreign policy, ending inflation and restoring prosperity through monetary and economic freedom.

What’s really amazing is that this simple, unifying message just won my primary election with 71% of the vote against the establishment’s neoconservative candidate. Oh, and my friend Rep. Walter Jones won his primary with 60%, as well.

Even better, given how willingly our elitist incumbent Rep. David Price takes orders from his establishment Democratic handlers, I expect this message to challenge his 22-year reign quite effectively in November.

I sincerely hope that we have a cohort of good Republicans who are ready to serve the people, and the Constitution, in 2009. But Newt is right: letting the Democrats own the “change” message will eviscerate the Republican party.

The economic and security challenges we face are not partisan challenges. Neither should be our solution — it’s time to again embrace the real contract with America, and restore a Constitutional federal government:

Please help us take this powerful message to the 4th District. We’ve won the primary, and need your immediate support to start building our plan and organization for the general election. Please donate today.

It’s late, we’re just getting in, and neither JoLynn nor I have slept much in the past 48 hours. So this will be short.

Thank you to all of the donors, volunteers, and supporters who have built our campaign over the past four months. Our resounding victory tonight is not about me — it’s about a message that will transform American government, and the future for our nation. Our victory is also a powerful statement that we Americans are ready for change. We’re tired of negative soundbite politics that divides us against each other, and we’re tired of agendas being forced upon us by party elites who are increasingly disconnected from reality, and the challenges we face.

We are ready to embrace a federal government that focuses on its Constitutional responsibilities, and stops being a suffocating burden that will haunt our children and grandchildren.

During our victory celebration this evening, I had a number of people ask me the same question, “So how are you going to take the message to beat David Price?” While we have much planning and work ahead, one part of the answer is easy: “Order more Constitutions!”

We distributed ten thousand copies for this primary. Here’s to distributing 100,000 for the general election!

Unfortunately, we didn’t get any video at the event tonight. But I found this video amazingly impressive:

If you haven’t voted yet, this is the day!

An informal survey of mostly-Republican polling places suggests that turnout is light - one precinct in Raleigh that’s about equally matched between Democrats and Republicans had 600 voters by lunchtime, as opposed to a more typical 1,200. How much of that is low turnout versus early voting? We will see. Just make sure your vote is counted!

Also, I was informed that a supporter has created a grassroots Web site, with a fantastic introductory video:

… see you tonight at the Chop House Grille!

This weekend was a blur. Saturday we gave away our last 200 Constitutions at Apex Peak Fest, and spread the word for our conservative judicial candidates at the Western Wake Republican Club booth. Special thanks to John Harvila, whose heroic efforts provided a great forum for educating Republican voters about the importance of voting in tomorrow’s election.

There is a lot more at stake than just a presidential primary, or even a Congressional race. We also need to support Judge John Tyson, Marty Miller, and Dean Poirier or Jewel Ann Farlow. Specifically, Judge Tyson has been involved in an expensive primary election, and TODAY is the last chance to provide needed financial support to drive his campaign through November.

At this point, it’s all about turnout. Yes, we have radio and television spots running today, signs are beginning to appear at polling places, and we have a fantastic network of friends who have volunteered to help staff the polls. I am also excited to report that I was endorsed by the national Republican Liberty Caucus over the weekend. But advertisements and endorsements won’t win the election — for those investments to pay off, we need voters!

Here’s where you come in. Today, please call five friends, and send an email to your contacts reminding, imploring, and cajoling them to get out and vote tomorrow. Even better, to save gas, call your friends and in the neighborhood and carpool to the polls! One car, five voters.

Ultimately, that’s how we win. Please help us get our voters to the polls, and we’ll have a lot to celebrate on Tuesday night as we prepare to take on David Price and the big-government elitists who have been ignoring our Constitution for far too long in Washington.

After you’ve voted, please join us tomorrow night at the Chop House Grille at the northwest corner of High House Road and Davis Drive in Cary. If we all do our part, there will be much to celebrate.

As we close out the National Day of Prayer, I was reflecting on the excellent experience my oldest daughter and I had this past Sunday joining folks at Abundant Life Church in Hillsborough for their Faith in Action Day. The motto for Faith in Action Day is simple: “Don’t just go to church, BE the church.”

We met ALC’s youth pastor, Ray McKinnon, while tabling at the Last Friday Celebration in downtown Hillsborough. We had a great conversation, and quickly found common ground around the need for a federal government that follows our Constitution. While Ray was staffing the Hillary Clinton table, many of the folks in his church are Republican — so he was kind enough to provide a steady flow of interested voters who are extremely interested in an alternative to the David Price and the status quo.

At the close of the evening, he invited us to join their church Sunday morning, when they were taking a break from the usual service and going out in the community to engage in a variety of service projects. That’s how Katie and I found ourselves in Hillsborough Heights, working with an enthusiastic group to rehabilitate a neighborhood park. Everyone brought their A-game that morning — David Bailey of Bailey’s Landscaping was among those directing the troops and equipment, and there were well organized piles of lumber, mulch, and tools for building play areas, flower beds, and a fence:

We spent a couple good hours digging post holes for the fence. Or rather, a machine bored the holes, and we simply scooped out the dirt. Needless to say, that was much more enjoyable than my prior experiences with post hole diggers. Then came the more detailed task of setting and aligning the fence posts:

Besides being a great way to improve the community, it was also an excellent opportunity to meet people and engage in meaningful conversations. The folks in this church come from various backgrounds, and have a variety of political views. But the common ground provided by putting faith in action through service is a great foundation for civic and spiritual dialog.

Sunday was a gentle reminder of our ability to seek and do God’s will, and how we can meaningfully improve our community in the process.

Best of all, no federal funding required!

I have been advised to respond to my opponent’s “Cho vs. Lawson” page on his Web site, where he trivializes my positions on a number of important issues in an effort to draw overly simplistic comparisons. I do not believe his approach will resonate with the intelligent voters of the Fourth District, who have often told me that they appreciate the nuanced discussions of the issues on our Web site and in our campaign blog.

One important distinction is that my opponent consistently fails to differentiate between the Constitutional role of the federal government versus the appropriate domain of state and local governments. Beyond that difference, however, I am not going to compare myself to my opponent based upon the issues. I have already enumerated the issues most critical to our nation’s physical and economic security at this crucial time.

Instead, I am going to compare myself to my opponent based upon a different, but equally important, set of criteria: transparency and honesty. My campaign reflects the way I believe government should operate: an honest discussion of the issues, openness to questions, and transparency in operation. This commitment is reflected in our real-time fundraising ticker, my being available for questions, engaging in discussion on our campaign blog, and encouraging voters to personally engage with me and my family as fellow citizens.

Mr. Cho, however, feels otherwise. During this “job interview” for public service, he has repeatedly avoided questions about his background, current occupation, and fitness for office. In fact, I was surprised to learn that my opponent actually threatened legal action against a long-time party activist who persisted in asking him a number of basic questions. Not only did my opponent retain an attorney to send a threatening letter to this retired lady, who is currently fighting cancer, he also distributed that letter to the Fourth District Executive Committee and members of the NC GOP leadership.

His email with this threatening letter from his attorney is posted for your review. Is such behavior fitting for a Congressional candidate? What kind of candidate makes a statement like:

If she has told you anything derogatory about me, it is in your best interest to not believe it or repeated [sic] it.

Is he threatening the reader?

His justification for threatening this lady was a claim of “slander”. However, my opponent should realize that applying for federal office is an invitation to have your fitness for office questioned and tested on a daily basis. Threats and refusing to answer questions do not make the questions go away.

As a result, this individual responded appropriately. Her attorney replied with a letter questioning the slander claim when she was simply reflecting questions being raised by the broader community. The letter from her attorney, with the associated questions and documentation, is available here. I’m not going to list all the questions, but here are a few:

• Questions are being asked about your current occupation. When asked, you have told people that you are an “author”. However, you stated in a personal interview on December 5, 2007 that you have made no money from writing or the sale of your books. By what manner do you currently generate income? If you are not generating income yourself, how do you pay for the expenses of daily living?
• You have maintained that you are, or were, an ordained Presbyterian minister. When and where were you ordained? At which churches did you serve, and for how long? Can you provide professional references regarding your career as a pastor?
• Public record searches report that you own no real estate. Do you own any real estate, and if so, where? The house at which you are registered to vote (106 Aster Place) is owned by Mona Lee. Is 106 Aster Place your permanent residence? There is another property in Chapel Ridge also owned by Mona Lee. Who is Mona Lee, and how are you related to her?
• Public records indicate that you had a Delaware driver’s license, and no North Carolina driver’s license, until just before you filed to run for Congress in February. Public records further indicate you were cited for not having complied with North Carolina’s change of address/driver’s license law (NCGS 20-7.1), seen in court on 7/26/2007. When did you finally obtain a North Carolina driver’s license? Did you just move to North Carolina in 2007, or did you move to North Carolina in 2005 and violate North Carolina motor vehicle laws for two years?
• Public records indicate that you were cited for violating NCGS 20-174.1 in July of 2007: “No person shall willfully stand, sit, or lie upon the highway or street in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic”, seen in court on 7/26/2007. Why?
• You stated to members of the Fourth District Executive Committee on November 13, 2007 that you have not paid back your student loan debt. How much student loan debt and/or other debt do you have outstanding, and how much is overdue? Are these federally subsidized student loans? Are these loans in default, and what are your plans for paying them back? Will you authorize a credit report?

Does anyone believe that a candidate who cannot answer these questions in a satisfactory fashion, or is unwilling to do so, is a viable candidate against David Price? How can the leadership of the Fourth District not insist on these questions being answered by a candidate who could potentially represent the Republican party? Isn’t it time we expect more of our elected representatives? And what on earth was he doing standing, sitting, or lying upon the highway in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic?

Before you cast your vote, remember: character matters.