Lawson for Congress

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.

I understand you have been extremely busy articulating your unquestioning loyalty to the GOP platform, and supporting blatantly unconstitutional federal power-grabs like the federal “war on drugs”. But one consequence of the unwieldy and unconstitutional federal government that you advocate is that our campaigns are subject to a wide variety of rules and regulations.

One particular requirement with which you might familiarize yourself is the Pre-Primary Report that must be filed with the FEC. Just to save you the trouble of checking your P.O. Box, I’ve made your Failure to File Letter available here.

Your campaign was notified of your failure to file the Pre-Primary Report back on April 25th, and given four business days to remedy that deficiency before the FEC published the violation. Apparently your campaign chose not to file the report, because the FEC published your Failure to File Letter on its Web site. To quote:

IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE FAILED TO FILE THE ABOVE REFERENCED REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT, AS AMENDED.

YOU WILL BE ALLOWED FOUR (4) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO FILE THIS REPORT TO AVOID PUBLICATION.

…

IN ADDITION, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THIS REPORT MAY RESULT IN CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AN AUDIT OR OTHER LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY CALCULATION FOR LATE REPORTS DOES NOT INCLUDE A GRACE PERIOD AND BEGINS ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE DUE DATE FOR THE REPORT.

You might consider filing this report, or it may appear that you have no more respect for our campaign regulations than you do for the original “contract with America”, our United States Constitution.

Why is fundraising so important? So we can take our message to the voters, win the primary election, and prepare for a great campaign and victory in November.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve discovered that taking the message to the voters via radio and television gets pretty expensive. But I think you’ll be pleased with the results.

First, here is the radio advertisement (lo-fi version for download) featuring Col. Steve Acuff’s endorsement that we’ll be running into the primary.

Next, here are three 30-second clips that we produced — we’re going to air the final one, entitled “Local Control”:

Following Its Own Rules

Means and Mandate

Local Control

What do you think? It was a challenge to film the second and third videos, as it was in the thirties that morning in D.C. and my face was just about frozen. Should have brought a coat!

We’re going with the third commercial since it actually has the “ask” for election day. Also, please help us leverage this media investment as much as possible — forward these links to your friends and family in the Fourth District, and remind them to vote on or before May 6th!

Finally, we really do need your financial support. Please make a donation today so we can air this message to as many voters as possible, and be well positioned for the next step in this battle to reclaim our government.

My primary opponent has continued his negative campaign with a mailer accusing me of associating with Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul. Let me make several points perfectly clear:

• I am proud to support a Presidential candidate who is a strong pro-life physician, delivered over 4,000 babies, and never performed an abortion nor needed to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.
• I am proud to support a Presidential candidate who has been a principled advocate of limited, Constitutional government for the entirety of his 20 years in Congress.
• I am proud to support a Presidential candidate who, as a Congressman, does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program. (I won’t participate either — a Congressional pension is an insult to working Americans everywhere.)
• I am proud to support a Presidential candidate who understands economics, and understands that our government’s disastrous fiscal and economic policies are putting our survival as a sovereign nation at risk.
• I am proud to support a Presidential candidate who served his country honorably in the Air Force, and who has attracted the most donations from military personnel.

There are certain individuals who believe Rep. Paul is somehow “extremist”, and represents “libertarianism” taking over the Republican party. These individuals need to listen to Ronald Reagan, in an interview with Reason magazine in 1975:

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

It’s time we stop putting ourselves, and each other, in boxes. It’s time we stop feeding from the trough of the mainstream media, start reading, and start thinking for ourselves. Our nation and our future depend on it.

I am proud to announce that I will be introducing Rep. Paul at his speeches to UNC and Duke this Friday, May 2. As a fellow Duke Medical School alum, it is an privilege to introduce such a staunch defender of our American republic. Why is defense of our American republic so critical at this moment in history? Please take twenty minutes to watch the following three videos:

Do we have what it takes to transition into a Constitutional republic, where all are truly equal with certain unalienable rights?

The company that one keeps is incredibly important, and I am well-known for engaging with a variety of people across the political spectrum. Does conversation and discussion with others mean I endorse all of their ideas? Of course not. But how are we going to make progress as a nation if we do not talk with each other about the issues at stake?

If you want a candidate in November who will hide behind the philosophical moat defined by the Republican party, you should vote for my primary opponent. My primary opponent is running a campaign based upon fear and unquestioning devotion to a party that, based upon the national debt alone, has objectively lost its way.

If you want an honest and forthright candidate who builds bridges, can win in November, and will be a principled advocate for a Constitutional federal government, then I greatly appreciate your financial support and vote on May 6th.

I joined Bill LuMaye yesterday afternoon at 5:30, and despite my best efforts to get from northern Durham to north Raleigh in time, traffic just didn’t cooperate. So I did the first half of the show via cell phone (yes, wearing a headset), and found some kind souls in the parking lot who let me into the building and showed me to the studio during the break.

All in all, it was an enjoyable experience with a great host. A friend captured the audio file here. Enjoy!

As we head into the home stretch towards the primary, my opponent’s attacks have become more direct, more personal, and more frequent. Clearly, negative campaigning is an useful tactic among those who lack a clear vision for the future or foundation for leadership. The ultimate question, however, is simple: How will the voters respond?

For me, that’s the question that matters. If voters buy into distortions and ignorant personal attacks, then they are not ready for the critical thinking and individual responsibility that is required for a limited, Constitutional federal government. I can’t help those voters, other than to continue educating about the problems staring us in the face.

I won’t pretend that turning the other cheek is pleasant and easy. It’s not. It’s tempting to hit back, and amplify the tough questions that others have been asking about my opponent’s transparency and truthfulness. But this race is not about him, or about me. It’s about what happens to a country when we fail to realize that the very foundation of our economy, our United States dollar, is being driven off a cliff by a government that does not know when to stop growing.

Folks, gas will not stop at $3.50. It will not stop at $4.00. Your grocery bill is not done going up. It’s not that the gas and food are that much more valuable, it’s that your dollars buy a lot less gas and food. Our government is borrowing and printing so much money that the green stuff in your pocket doesn’t buy as much on global markets. Maybe your standard of living isn’t affected yet — great, that’s fantastic for you. But get your concealed carry permit, and prepare to absorb the cost of increased police protection when increasingly desperate members of society turn to crime to satisfy basic needs.

That’s a tough message, and one most candidates are not ready to address. But we must begin discussing the consequences of big government — because once we understand that a big federal government is causing the problem, we’ll realize that even bigger federal government is not the solution. We cannot create wealth by printing more paper or electronic money. Such a path leads only to dependency, depravity and tyranny.

So back to negative campaigning. Here I am, a lifelong Republican, trying to unseat a 22-year Democratic incumbent who personifies big government and the status quo. I’m being hit by negative attacks from my primary opponent and leaders within the Republican party who apparently don’t appreciate federalism and the unique value of our United States Constitution. I’m fine absorbing those attacks, because this contest is about a vision for leadership and philosophy of government within the party. May the best ideas win, right?

But then attention turns to the North Carolina GOP itself. Someone decided it would be a good idea to produce an advertisement, ostensibly to help the Republican gubernatorial candidates, that attempts to link the Democratic gubernatorial candidates to the controversial Reverend Wright via their endorsements of Barack Obama. The advertisement takes a soundbite from Rev. Wright, overlays pictures of the parties involved, and paints the Democratic gubernatorial candidates as extremists by association:

When you’re trying to build a coalition of voters across parties who know we need change, does this advertisement help?

I finally saw the ad this evening after receiving a number of comments and complaints from people I respect, both inside and outside the Republican party. When I watched it, I just had to groan. This is how the NC GOP spends its money? Does the party really think a shallow “guilt by association” attack ad rehashing (very) old news will help its candidates?

Folks, we have tough issues in this state. Our roads are bad, our schools are worse, and the corruption and corporate welfare in Raleigh are draining our wallets and filling our prisons (yes, with our elected officials). If the party wants to help its gubernatorial candidates, who truly are the agents of change in North Carolina, why doesn’t the GOP show how we can solve the problems resulting from decades of single-party rule?

From a practical perspective, we have zero chance of electing a Republican governor without building a broad coalition of voters who want real change. Tonight, the State Board of Elections shows that North Carolina has 2,617,610 Democrat, 1,934,131 Republican, and 1,240,599 Unaffiliated voters. So what is to be gained with a negative attack ad that causes people to roll their eyes, shrug their shoulders, and dismiss Republicans for engaging in “politics as usual”?

Here’s to elevating the dialog this year, and engaging on the issues.

Now with video, and pictures from the Freedom Rally. The High Definition video provided by Vimeo is truly amazing.

Finally, we thought this sign at the Potbelly Sandwich Works was oddly appropriate, given the current problems with food inflation:

Just received this fantastic endorsement, which is much appreciated after my speech at the College Republicans’ state convention on April 12:

The endorsement letter reads as follows:

Contact: Vikram Srinivasan                                   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Org.: Duke College Republicans
Tel.: 408-410-1521
E-mail: Vikram.Srinivasan@duke.edu

DUKE COLLEGE REPUBLICANS ENDORSE LAWSON FOR HOUSE GOP PRIMARY
Group Extols Candidate’s Reform Message, Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility

Duke College Republicans officially endorsed William “BJ” Lawson’s candidacy for the Republican nomination for North Carolina’s fourth Congressional District Monday afternoon, in advance of the upcoming May 6 statewide primary.

Lawson’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility in Washington, which Lawson highlighted as the most fundamental difference between himself and Representative Price, greatly impressed the group. Given his experience starting and leading his own business impressed, Lawson impressed DCR with his understanding of principles of fiscal responsibility.

“Young voters are concerned about out-of-control government spending, and Duke College Republicans believe that BJ Lawson can help bring fiscal restraint back to Washington,” said Samuel Tasher, executive director of DCR and chair of the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans. “Lawson has real world experience that enables him to represent the economic concerns of voters in the fourth district.”

The group was also impressed with Lawson’s attentiveness to the concerns of youth.

“BJ Lawson really understands that young voters are concerned about our economic future,” said Vikram Srinivasan, chair of DCR. “To ensure that we face a healthy economy when we enter the job market, Washington needs some serious policy reform. BJ Lawson is the man to lead that effort.”

Yet other members were impressed with Lawson’s grassroots campaign and his efforts to meet with voters in personal settings.

“He just seems to be much more in touch with the constituents in this district than either Rep. Price or other recent Republican candidates,” said Jon Martin, executive board member for Duke College Republicans. “Even though many of our members don’t agree with every part of Lawson’s platform, in this district, that’s a real strength. Lawson’s ability to appeal to all voters in the fourth district makes him a strong general election candidate.”

DCR looks forward to Lawson’s victory in the May 6 primary and a strong campaign based on the concerns of district four voters against the dysfunctional representation provided by the incumbent Rep. Price.

—END—

####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 17, 2008

CONTACT
Linda Williams
919-481-1177

Durham - Congressional candidate William Lawson, M.D. will be holding a press conference at the Durham Earth Day Festival in Durham Central Park at 2pm on Saturday, April 19th to announce his opposition to the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed siting of a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) biodisease laboratory (NBAF) in Butner, North Carolina. The conference will be at the Lawson for Congress table, and the setting has been chosen to emphasize the importance of local control and accountability in environmental protection.

The proposed facility will study a range of diseases affecting humans and animals, including the economically devastating Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). It is impossible to predict which diseases will be studied, however, as the Department of Homeland Security reserves the ability to study organisms at their discretion based upon perceived risk.

Recent news reports highlight the history of accidents at existing facilities both in the United States and abroad, and the most recent severe outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease have paradoxically been caused by research facilities themselves. No facility can be completely safe, and Dr. Lawson believes it is common sense to avoid locating such laboratories in areas that put local human and livestock populations at risk. This position is shared by Dr. Roger Breeze, who previously directed Homeland Security’s existing biodisease laboratory in Plum Island, New York.

The second concern with such a facility is lack of local control. While we already have several BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories in our area, these labs are associated with industry, our universities, and our state’s Division of Public Health. As such, there are certain levels of transparency and accountability associated with their activities. The Department of Homeland Security is a completely different animal, and over the course of the past five years has proven itself to be highly politicized, corrupt, wasteful, and secretive. The transparency and accountability that we can demand of our existing facilities would be completely absent at NBAF.

###

Just received this email from a supporter:

B.J.

Thanks for adding us to your email list. I enjoyed meeting and listening to you last week at the home in the Stonehenge sub division. We have your sign in our yard and hope to be able to help in your campaign in other ways too.

I was reading the copy of the constitution you gave out on an airplane and the guy beside me could not believe I was reading our constitution – you’re right – we all need to read it!

Thank you for serving, All the best

We’re making progress, and we need your help us get the word out — please make a donation today!