Lawson for Congress

You know it’s getting close when a 20 year incumbent needs to attack his opponent, and his political ideology, head on. Anyone who’s in office for that long should be able to stand on the merits of his own record rather than launching attacks. Here is an excerpt from a letter that he recently sent out to his supporters.

…Proclaiming to be the protégé of failed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, Dr. Lawson has a laissez faire, libertarian approach to government and the economy that I believe is fundamentally wrong. Our current financial crisis clearly demonstrates that the hands-off, anything-goes mentality on regulation employed by the Bush Administration and supported by Dr. Lawson simply does not work and is, very frankly, dangerous to our economy and way of life.

David Price has been playing politics here in the 4th district for the last month - constantly trying to tie Dr. Lawson to the Bush Administration in any way that he can. All of this started happening when we launched our TV and Radio Ads thanks to your support.

But this time he has gone too far.

To attack our political philosophy like this, and constantly show a clear disregard of limited government principles that our nation was founded upon says something to me. It should say something to you too.

We need to get this man out of our government.

David Price is stepping up his campaign in a big way, and we need your help to continue the fight.

Please make a donation today to support our efforts - we have 2 new TV ads and a massive mailer ready to go with your help.

Mr. Price, you just called out the Revolution.

B.J.’s recent entry on David Price’s love of pork, and the quoting of President Grover Cleveland within, got me thinking about another great President who understood the proper role of the Executive Branch and the importance of strictly following the Constitution: President Calvin Coolidge.

Silent Cal (as he was called because in private he was a man of few words) is my second favorite President (the first? Jefferson, of course). I admire his commitment to principles and constant defense of the Constitution. I also think he’s one of the most interesting Presidents we’ve ever had and as such, I often try to impress girls at parties with Coolidge trivia (this probably explains a lot). Here’s one of the most well-known bits of Coolidge trivia:

Legend has it that Dorothy Parker once said to him at a dinner, “Mr. Coolidge, I’ve made a bet against a fellow who said it was impossible to get more than two words out of you.”

Silent Cal’s famous reply? “You lose.”

Beyond his ability to whip out clever zingers, Coolidge’s defense of the Constitution was unwavering. In 1920, while he was still Governor, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed the sale of beer or wine of 2.75% alcohol or less, in defiance of the Eighteenth Amendment. This was despite that Coolidge himself was opposed to Prohibition. In his veto message he stated “opinions and instructions do not outmatch the Constitution. Against it, they are void.”

These wise words can and should be applied to every policy considered by our government.

Still, Coolidge had and continues to have his critics, just those those who support a Constitutional federal government today. In response to Coolidge’s critics, historian Robert Sobel offered up the following explanation of Coolidge’s view of the role of the federal government:

As Governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge supported wages and hours legislation, opposed child labor, imposed economic controls during World War I, favored safety measures in factories, and even worker representation on corporate boards. Did he support these measures while President? No, because in the 1920s, such matters were considered the responsibilities of state and local governments.

I have only one problem with Dr. Sobel’s analysis: those matters are still the responsibility of state and local governments and Constitution, and more specifically the Tenth Amendment, restricts the vast majority of matters to state and local governments, but more importantly to the people.

That’s the way it’s suppose to be, at least, but in the last 100 years or so the Constitution has become more and more ignored and today we are suffering the consequences of a federal government running wild, from higher food prices to illegal immigration to crushing debt.

Dr. Sobel isn’t wrong, though… it’s the consideration, not the Constitution, that’s changed. The Constitution is no longer considered and it’s time to change that and restore the Constitution.

A restoration of a Constitutional government and individual liberty is the solution to so many of our problems. It’s time to realize that it’s “we the people…” — not the federal government — that are going to solve the problems we face.

But we’re going to have to fight to get the federal government off our backs first so we can once again have the kind of federal government that protects life and liberty, but otherwise stays out of our way and out of our lives.

Or, as President Coolidge said, “one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business.”

The fight against the National Bio & Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) continues to march forward and gather steam. In the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know members of the Granville Non-Violent Action Team (G.N.A.T.) and they, along with B.J., have inspired and encouraged me to speak out about NBAF.

So, in the last couple of weeks, I have composed two Letters to the Editor: one for the Durham Herald-Sun, and one to the Raleigh News & Observer.

Below is my letter to the Durham Herald-Sun, which addresses the attempts by the NC Consortium for NBAF to speak about the security and transparency factors of the proposed facility even though they are unqualified to speak about either:

NBAF risks public health
March 6, 2008

Regarding the Feb. 27th article “Official Supports Bio-Agro Defense Facility”, Dr. Warwick Arden, Dean of the NCSU College of Veterinary Medicine, like many members of the N.C. Consortium for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), is unqualified to discuss the security and transparency aspects of the facility. He is not a member of Homeland Security and, as such, his assurances of how the Department will behave are meaningless.

Further, there are several facts that Arden cannot deny. For instance, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which will be stored at NBAF, in England in 2007 is believed to have been caused by an accidental release from a facility there. Accidents, after all, do happen.

In September, New York Congressman Tim Bishop, whose district includes Plum Island, encouraged his constituents to reject locating NBAF on Plum Island. This was despite that the facility on Plum Island has been in place for over 50 years.

At the Creedmoor town hall meeting last week, Dr. William (B.J.) Lawson, a physician who’s running for Congress against NBAF-supporter David Price, argued that we should collaborate with laboratories around the world already studying these diseases instead of building a “Taj Mahal” for these diseases in our backyard.

The reality remains unchanged. NBAF presents undeniable and unnecessary public safety and health risks to our area that any potential benefits from the facility do not outweigh. Unqualified assurances from Arden and other members of the Consortium will not change that.

While my letter to the Herald-Sun tackled a recent article they published, my letter to the News and Observer tackled what hasn’t been in any articles yet: the fact that David Price supports NBAF and has lobbied Homeland Security to bring it here. Here it is, as published (except for the bold part):

What Price supports

I have yet to see a single article that points out that U.S. Rep. David Price supports the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility and as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security has been lobbying the Department of Homeland Security to bring it to the area.

He has done so while ignoring the dangers of the NBAF, a facility that will store animal-to-animal and animal-to-human diseases that will pose health and safety risks to local livestock and residents.

Thankfully, at least one candidate has stepped up to retire professional politician Price and give the people of the forth district a voice in Washington once again — B.J. Lawson, a Duke Medical School graduate from Cary who filed his candidacy last month.

It seems that after serving in Congress for over 20 years, Price has lost touch with the people he’s supposed to represent. I say “supposed to” because a glance at Price’s campaign donors shows whom he now truly represents: a laundry list of corporate and special interests, including some interests who might benefit from NBAF being located in the area.

It’s time for long-overdue change. Someone in Congress actually looking out for the best interests of the people would be Price-less.

The part in bold was actually removed by the newspaper, but as people wake up to what David Price is doing, they’ll begin to look for alternatives. B.J. Lawson is that alternative.

Watch our local newspapers, as many other local residents are speaking out about the proposed facility and making solid points about its dangers. I encourage everyone to do the same, and don’t stop at NBAF. Letters to the Editor are a great way to speak your mind about whatever issue is important to you. To write the Durham Herald-Sun click here. To write the Raleigh News and Observer click here.

I hate going to the DMV. Other than maybe a Nickelback concert (I’ve never been to one so I can’t judge, but I imagine that’s gotta be torture), it’s the most irritating place on the planet. I know I’m not alone. I don’t know a single person who enjoys going to the DMV, and most people I know feel the same way about it as I do. If there is a hell I am convinced it must be inside the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The mutual hatred of the DMV by almost every American is the reason I’m always successful explaining to people why the REAL ID is bad. I may not be able to convince them when I explain that the REAL ID is unconstitutional and a threat to our liberties (which is sad, because that alone should convince all Americans that REAL ID is bad), but I can always convince them when I tell them what they’ll have to go through to get their driver’s license if REAL ID is implemented in our state.

As this recent article from WRAL.com explains:

Raleigh, N.C. — Later this year, the way you get your driver’s license will change. Whether you are renewing or getting a new license, it will take more than a simple trip down to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get it.

…

“It sounds like it would be more of an inconvenience to wait 20 days for your license with your picture ID,” driver Brittany Adams said.

DMV officials said the extra wait time allows for more sophisticated background checks. If you pass all DMV tests, a license will be mailed to your permanent address within 20 days.
…

Licenses will no longer be made on-site at each DMV office. Instead, they will be made at a single Raleigh location, based on state legislation passed two years ago.

While to some this may not seem so bad it’s still an extra inconvenience on top of the already inconvenient trip to the DMV. It also shows how fast the changes to our drivers licenses are moving forward, and it’s likely just the beginning. In two recent blog entries here and here, BJ points out what to expect as REAL ID becomes fully implemented (including the extent of the inconvenience from it when you go to get your license or to get it renewed) and the reason why it is unconstitutional and a threat to our liberties.

Here’s the ultimate question: is it worth it?

No, it is not. A “national ID card” doesn’t protect us from people with evil intent. The 9/11 hijackers were not traveling under aliases — they were exactly who they said they were, complete with drivers licenses and credit cards. Some legislators in Raleigh have mistakenly thought that we need REAL ID to prevent us from giving licenses to illegal aliens. We should not be giving licenses to people here illegally, but we don’t need REAL ID to fix that problem. We are quite capable of fixing that problem as a state.

Not only is REAL ID an unnecessary inconvenience and pernicious corporate welfare, it’s also a serious threat to our liberties. Finally, it’s also unconstitutional — so even if it was worth it, REAL ID couldn’t be implemented without amending the Constitution. That’s the way it’s suppose to work, anyway. Sadly, our current lawmakers have absolutely no respect for the Constitution and that is why we must, as I said in my recent entry O Banker! My Hacker!, make them walk the plank. Including and especially David Price.

Speaking of Price, it may interest you to know that he actually voted against the REAL ID before he voted for it. You see, while he voted against The REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) on February 10th, 2005, he voted for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), which contained the REAL ID provisions, on May, 5th, 2005.

So much for being principled when spending our taxpayer dollars. Of course, Price wasn’t the only one who did this. Fellow North Carolina Democrat Brad Miller from the neighboring 13th District did the exact same thing. I ran into Congressman Miller last week at the NBAF Town Hall Meeting and decided to take the opportunity to ask him about the REAL ID and his flip-flop on it. Here’s our exchange:

ME: Excuse me, Congressman Miller? My name is Garland Ragland and I’m one of your constituents. We’ve met a couple of times before. I wanted to ask you a question about the REAL ID… You voted against The REAL ID Act but then turned around and voted for the Appropriations bill with the provisions in it (the look he gave me at this point, along with the shrug, showed me he had absolutely no idea how he voted or what the REAL ID even was) and I was just wondering why that was the case and if you could clarify your stance on it?

REP. MILLER: …Well, if I voted against it than I’m against it…

ME: But you voted for it after you voted against it. You voted for the provisions in an Appropriations bill…

REP. MILLER: Well, okay… but that was an Appropriations bill… so there was a lot more there…

ME: I understand. Thank you for your time.

I did understand. What I understood was that to Miller it was politics as usual to vote for an Appropriations bill containing sections and provisions he had previously objected to. I understood, as he quickly disappeared into the school’s auditorium to avoid anymore tough questions, that we must have real change in Washington and the status quo is not acceptable.

My conversation would have been no different if it had been David Price in Miller’s place. This is because they’re all part of a system to rotten to its core. Instead of getting elected and fighting it from the inside, they’ve become part of the inside. They play politics, they’re void of principled stances and all they care about is getting reelected.

It’s time for us to demand more of from our elected officials, as B.J. says in one of his recent entries on the REAL ID. I wholeheartedly agree. If we demand more from them and they’re held accountable for their votes and their actions and their lack of principles they will change because they’ll know if they don’t they’ll get voted out of office. Remember, ultimately all they care about is getting reelected.

Regarding our state legislators, they’re starting to get the message. Please visit this new Web site, www.ncard.info, and find out how your state legislators stand. Then use the contact information to inform them that their job security depends on getting North Carolina to join the 17 other states who have opted out of REAL ID.

Of course, while we should demand more from our elected officials, I think it’s a good idea to go ahead and replace this current defective batch with principled statesmen and women who will uphold the Constitution.

We can start by retiring 22-year professional politician David Price and electing B.J. Lawson, principled statesmen and defender of the Constitution, in his place.

In Walt Whitman’s poem about Abraham Lincoln, O Captain! My Captain!, Lincoln is represented as the captain of a ship — the ship representing America. The poem details the struggles Lincoln endured as President, such as The Civil War, and how he guided the country through them as the “captain” (President) of our “ship” (country) until there was calm again.

Nearly 150 years later one must wonder what measure of drunken sailor is currently steering our ship at sea, or whether anyone has the wheel at all, when you consider the current state of our country, especially when it comes to the economy.

The reality is the entire “crew” currently steering our ship at sea has gotten into the rum and they’re steering us right into a fiscal hurricane. You might know the “crew” better by their more common name — Congress.

It became even more evident that they’re sailing us right into the path of a storm last week when the House of Representatives approved a nearly $150 billion dollar “stimulus package.” The Senate is expected to follow suit.

While the “stimulus package” will certainly come too late to stop top economists from setting off alarms that (and perhaps the reality that) we are already in a recession, one has to wonder if it will have any positive impact on the economy at all. And could it actually have a negative impact?

Shawn Tully, editor for Fortune Magazine, thinks so. In a recent article for Fortune he asks the question “will the cure be worse than the disease?” and makes the following point:

The wobbly economy is overtaking Iraq as the issue weighing most heavily on the minds of America’s voters. And Washington has noticed. The White House and Congress are almost certain to enact some kind of stimulus package. But like all such temporary, feel-good measures, it will generate a quick blip in growth that will quickly evaporate.

So if Mr. Tully is correct and the “stimulus package” will only “generate a quick blip in growth” and then “quickly evaporate” than is it worth it? And more importantly where do we get the $150 billion dollars? Since we’re running a deficit and we have a national debt we have two choices that can be likened to a choice between getting punched in the stomach or punched in the face: Borrow or print it.

If we choose to simply print the money we’ll further weaken our already weak dollar which will then trigger more inflation — just like what happens when the Fed cuts interest rates also in the name of “stimulating the economy.” Obviously this would be bad for the economy, or as Mr. Tully points out in his article:

Indeed, while the economy is sending mixed messages about growth, the signs of increasing inflation are flashing bright red. For 2007 the consumer price index rose 4.1%, the biggest annual increase in 17 years. Gold, historically a reliable harbinger of inflation, set an all-time high of more than $900 an ounce. The dollar is languishing at a record low against the euro and a weighted basket of international currencies. “Flooding the market with liquidity is a disaster for the purchasing power of the dollar,” says David Gitlitz, chief economist for Trend Macrolytics.

If we choose to borrow the money the obvious consequence will be a greater national debt, but there also hidden consequences as well. To understand these hidden consequences first let’s understand who we’d be most likely to borrow the bulk of the money from — China, our banker.

China is quickly emerging as a global military superpower and a couple years back the FBI and the Pentagon investigated whether Chinese spies had been hacking into U.S. government computer systems. Then, in June of last year, it was alleged that China’s military hacked the Pentagon’s computer network, an allegation that the Chinese government denied.

Whether true or not it’s hard not to see why this isn’t the best country to owe money, or in other words: O Banker! My Hacker!

When this is considered the hidden consequences of borrowing from them are revealed and they can be summed up in one sentence: our national security is weakened.

It’s also not hard to see why Shawn Tully asks “will the cure be worse than the disease?” when the ’swallow spiders to kill flies’ approaches — which will hurt the economy more in the long term in favor of short term gain by either increasing the national debt or further weakening the dollar and causing inflation — to the economy Congress and the Fed are taking are considered.

To this end, Congress treating an ailing economy with a $150 billion dollar “stimulus package” makes about as much sense as a doctor treating cancer with AIDS. We’ll either have to print the money and further undermine our currency at a time when New York City stores are putting up signs that they accept the stronger Euro almost as fast as other stores are putting up “out of business” signs and “for sale” signs are going up in front of foreclosed homes. Or we’ll have to borrow the money from countries like China, weakening our national security in the process and forcing future generations to pay the price of our unpaid bills.

In front of the Chinese with hat in hand on bended knee is no place for our children to end up.

Thomas Jefferson once said “timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” The sea of liberty is, indeed, tempestuous, but at least there’s always a destination with calm seas ahead. We need a new crew in Washington made up of people like B.J. Lawson steering our ship at sea, one with a destination of liberty, and the current crew and their status quo needs to be made to walk the plank.

I always use labels with caution, as one label may mean one thing to one person but something completely different to another person.

Last week I thought a lot about labels after a certain e-mail went out that recklessly used the term “true Republican.”

What is a “true Republican”? If only we could ask Senator Robert Taft.

Robert Taft was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1939 to 1953. He was the leading opponent of the New Deal in the Senate and led The Conservative Coalition in opposing it. He was also a leader of the Old Right-wing of the Republican Party. The Old Right were staunch non-interventionists.

His nickname? “Mr. Republican”.

But when you consider Taft’s non-interventionist views, is it possible that if “Mr. Republican” were alive today he’d be accused of not being a “true Republican”? There’s no doubt in my mind.

Imagine that: someone sending out an e-mail attacking Robert Taft, one of the most prominent figures in Republican Party history, for not being a “true Republican”. So here’s the question: who’s really the “true Republican” and who’s not? Who’s out of step with the Republican Party and who’s not?

I’ll leave those questions for the reader to answer, but it should be noted that non-interventionism within the Republican Party did not die with Robert Taft. In fact, the Republican Party has traditionally been the non-interventionist party. This was the case throughout the 20th Century.

It was Eisenhower who ran on ending the Korean War and did so when he became President. It was Nixon who was elected to end the Vietnam War.

In the ’90s it was Republicans who condemned U.S. intervention into Somalia and Clinton’s interventions and nation-building around the world, especially in Kosovo.

Even as recent as in the year 2000 non-interventionism was a key part of the Republican platform when then-Governor Bush ran on a platform of non-interventionism and no nation-building, and attacked Al Gore for the interventionism and nation-building of the Clinton Administration.

Here’s what he had to say on the subject in the second Presidential debate of the 2000 election that took place between him and Al Gore on October 11th, 2000:

MODERATOR: The use of the military, there — some people are now suggesting that if you don’t want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?

BUSH: I don’t think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.
…

I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

Even John McCain, who recently said we might be in Iraq for “maybe 100 [years],” had this to say about U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1993:

There’s no reason for the United States to remain [in Somalia]. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake.

In the end, there is no denying that non-interventionist views have long been part of the Republican Party platform. They are deeply rooted within the Republican Party. They were the views of Robert Taft and they are the views of B.J. Lawson.

There’s also no denying that interventionist views have long been part of the Democratic Party platform. It started with Woodrow Wilson, who proclaimed that we should make “the world safe for democracy,” and continues to this day.

One must conclude that any Republican who promotes an interventionist foreign policy has accepted the Democratic party’s historic foreign policy, and has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, than Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican.”

So who’s the “true Republican”?

Most Americans make New Years resolutions, and most break them. I never have for that reason. I’ve always felt that if I made one I’d just turn around and break it. However, this New Years I did make a resolution for the first time ever and that resolution was to do something that would make a difference for my country.

On January 2nd, 2008, I met BJ Lawson.

I arrived at BJ’s house at around 8 o’clock. I had never met BJ in person before, much less been to his home, but I knew exactly which house was his from the cars already gathered in the driveway.

A few days earlier I had e-mailed BJ after finding out he was running with a simple message: “if there’s anything I can do to help let me know.” He had promptly e-mailed me back with an invite to come to his house to meet with him and others tonight. I pulled into his driveway and walked towards the door.

I rang the door bell and BJ answered. I shook his hand and introduced myself and he invited me inside, immediately offering me something to drink. I took him up on his offer and poured myself a cup of coffee before walking around the living room to introduce myself to everyone, with BJ’s assistance.

Three things I realized within five minutes of being there:

1. I’d never felt more welcome in someone’s home in my entire life.

2. There was no television downstairs. Lots of books, and a couple Macintosh computers, but no television.

3. All of these people were patriots.

In a day and age when apathy runs rampant, being in a room with so many freedom-loving people who so deeply care about their country and are willing to fight for it filled me with so much hope.

In some cases they were literally willing to fight for it such as in the case of Victor, an Iraq war veteran. In other cases they were people who had been fighting for decades for their country by being politically and socially active such as Howard, who among other things was a big Goldwater supporter in the ’60s.

There were people from BJ’s company, MercuryMD, who helped him create jobs for Americans. There was Chinnapan, a talented graphic designer and Indian-American who spoke of his travels to India and how America is viewed by the rest of the world. He explained how in India the U.S. dollar has always been so highly regarded and how fast that’s changing due to how weak our dollar is getting as a consequence of our flawed monetary policy.

But, more than anyone else the person I was most impressed by was BJ. I remember thinking “here’s the kind of person I need to strive to be.” At just 33 years of age BJ has already accomplished a lot. He has a fantastic family, and if you’ve ever doubted the old saying that “behind every great man, there is a great woman” you need to meet BJ’s wife JoLynn. He has a beautiful home, is a Duke alumnus, has a background in engineering and medicine and has been an entrepreneur having started his own company.

He’s also just an all around great person. Friendly, warm, charismatic, smart and patriotic. He truly loves his country and he’s willing to fight for it.

BJ Lawson is not a politician and that’s a good thing. He’s a real person with real concerns about our country. He’s a statesman and a real Republican. That’s exactly the kind of person we need representing North Carolina’s Fourth District.

It can happen, too, because he can beat David Price… and with everyone giving their all for liberty he will. When I walked into his home I walked in with the highest hopes but still with the thought burning in the back of my mind “I don’t know if he can beat David Price.” When I walked out all I could think was “He’s going to do this. He’s going to beat David Price.”

As I stepped out the door into the cold that night and walked to my car, after saying my “goodbyes” to BJ and all of the other patriots I had met that night, I was filled with a warmth inside (which is also my excuse for forgetting my coat). I held my head high and walked to my car with a smile on my face and a new found optimism. Filled with hope for my country I was already so proud to be part of this and so ready to start the fight for change the next day.

When I got home, after what may have been the best drive home I’ve taken in my life, I slipped into bed. My last thought before I fell asleep, thinking about my New Years resolution, was “this year we make a difference. It starts tomorrow and it’ll only be the beginning.”

That night I slept better than I had in months.