An encouraging note from NC 4th congressional district!

BJ Lawson has decided to run again for Congress!!! BJ is the ultimate "anti" candidate. He ran against David Price in 2008, and polled 37% in an Obama Tsunami. This is better than any candidate has done since the district was re-drawn to ensure Price's re-election by the state political hacks. I was introduced to BJ when I was following Ron Paul's presidential run. He has been called the "hybrid candidate" because he attracted so many traditional Democrat voters, due to his strong stance on issues of personal liberty.

Audit the Federal Reserve -- does it make sense to have the monetary policy of the USA determined by a private group of non-accountable international bankers?

A non interventionist foreign policy -- there are ways of resisting Islamofascism and making us safe OTHER than bleeding us dry with wars, invoking hostility and/or resentment from other countries, and stationing our armed forces in over 150 countries around the world

Restore power to the states and the people by forcing Congress to SPECIFICALLY STATE the constitutional justification for each piece of legislation (see Bill of Rights, amendments 9 and 10)

Roll back the unconstitutional power grab of the Federal government in areas of firearms, drug laws, reproductive/abortion issues, eminent domain, education and scores of other areas which do not belong to DC, under our Constitution, including of course, NCAA football championship playoffs (no, I am not kidding!)

Energy Independence -- is it wise to be enslaved to oil producing countries who openly wish us harm? We have a plethora of energy sources available, including nuclear.

A sound currency -- the dollar has lost 96% of its value over the last 90 or so years, and is due to nosedive due to the reckless and profligate spending of the current and previous administration. Part of that soundness would be the authorization of competing currencies with the fiat money issued by the federal reserve, a practice that has a rich history in our country, and one which would enhance federal honesty in minting.

Reversal of the "patriot act" and other federal intrusions into the rights and privacy of American citizens, along with restoration of habeas corpus, and a reversal of the horrible "right" of the State Department to declare even American citizens to be "enenmy combatants" and kill them, without a trial or official investigation

End the creation of "zombie" corporations by excessive cash dumping into bankrupt companies. Dr. Lawson believes that companies with viable assets who no longer are fiscally able to stand should be allowed to liquidate those assets to healthy companies more able to utilize them (we used to call this practice "bankruptcy")

Stop the insane, wildass spending by the Federal Government at all levels, and demand a return to a constitutionally authorized budget, rather than one simply authorized by Congressional appropriation wherever they feel moved to fund something.

His opponent is a NY resident ex-currency trader who SUPPORTED the massive bailouts and TARP program. He might as well have gotten himself in the picture with Crist from Florida getting all chummy with Obama over this huge federal invervention into our economy.

Roche cannot be called a “conservative” in any known universe I have inhabited.

Link please? This is the second or third thread where you've been spreading this manure.

And for who? BJ Lawson? A loser who blew hundreds of thousands of dollars in media ads, and only managed to increase the GOP share of the vote by 1%? It's because he doesn't know what he's talking about, and it shows painfully when he tries to address the issues.

BJ Lawson is a bad candidate:

He supports reinstating PAYGO, which has been shown to increase taxes, while not reducing budgetary spending (and it even exempts discretionary spending).
He supports a "carbon tax" which he explicitly says he intends to be "revenue neutral" with the income tax it supposedly will replace, but which would hurt us even more than the income tax since it specifically jacks up our cost of living, and would be a job killer even more than the income tax is.
He claims to be the "constitutional" candidate, while rejecting both the sole authority over coining currency given to Congress (Art. I, Sect. 8) and the first amendment freedom of assembly rights of individuals who form corporations.

these are just a few of the problems with BJ Lawson. NC-4 needs a mature candidate who knows the issues, not a RINO pot-and-porn party trojan horse.

Link please? This is the second or third thread where you've been spreading this manure.

Roche supported the TARP. If you really need a link to that, I will get it for you. You are prevaricating and you know it.

A loser who blew hundreds of thousands of dollars in media ads, and only managed to increase the GOP share of the vote by 1%?

Lawson got 37 per cent of the vote. Want me to do the numbers for you? You lie

He supports a "carbon tax" which he explicitly says he intends to be "revenue neutral" with the income tax it supposedly will replace, but which would hurt us even more than the income tax since it specifically jacks up our cost of living, and would be a job killer even more than the income tax is.

All taxes jack up our cost of living, Clyde. Got that? ALL of them. You can either tax our "CONSUMPTION" or our "INCOME." Moving to tax CONSUMPTION rather than income is the way the government survived for about 150 years. Saying it will "jack up our cost of living" without considering the LEVEL of taxation is just stupid. Sorry, no other way to put it. If we think that being beholden to a bunch of sharia loving fanatics is good and healthy for our long term security, then our consumption taxes (if we ever decide to wake up and reverse the insane idea of punishing productivity) would reflect that noble goal. If otoh, you believe that sovereignty pushes energy independence then guess what. That is right, even an intellectual colossus realizes that CONSUMPTION TAXES ARE TARGETED. Always have been.

The bottom line is that Lawson advocates REPLACING income taxes with consumption taxes. To mau mau around the fire shrieking "carbon tax" without specifying the context (replacement of income with targeted consumption) and the amount is typical of the prevaricating dishonesty of the establishment politicians.

He claims to be the "constitutional" candidate, while rejecting both the sole authority over coining currency given to Congress

That statement is stupid, unconstitutional, unsupported by history and a lie. Other than that, it is brilliant. First of all there is no "sole" authority mentioned in Art. I, Sect. 8, and I assume you have read amendments 9 and 10 to the BOR, right? According to this brilliant reasoning, State and local municipalities have no authority to levy taxes because Congress has this authority (same section).. State and local currencies existed at the time of and after the ratification of the constitution. The section gives authority to "coin money" and that is it. Please show me where it specifies that it has the authority to "issue currency".... I will wait for you.

the first amendment freedom of assembly rights of individuals who form corporations.

Huh?

NC-4 needs a mature candidate who knows the issues, not a RINO pot-and-porn party trojan horse.

and the republican party needs to get past constipated blue haired dyspeptics who are obsessed with the idea that every moral wrong must be prohibited by federal statute, Constitution be damned.

Roche supported the TARP. If you really need a link to that, I will get it for you. You are prevaricating and you know it.

Do what? I'm "prevaricating" because I asked you provide evidence for your as-yet unsubstantiated assertion?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lawson got 37 per cent of the vote. Want me to do the numbers for you? You lie

In 2006, Steve Acuff got 35.1% of the vote, and in 2004, Todd Batchelor got 35.8% of the vote. Neither of them spent more than a small fraction of the nearly $1 million that BJ Lawson spent to garner 36.7% in 2008. Again, for all the money spent, Lawson doesn't appear to have moved the final tallies appreciably.

While it is true that all taxes will increase cost of living in one form or another, you are incorrect in your characterisation of BJ Lawson's (or anybody else's) carbon tax. Trying to cast a "carbon tax" as a "consumption tax" in the same sense that the Fair Tax or some other sales tax meets that criterion is disingenuous. A "carbon tax" would have a much greater impact on our cost and standard of living than a "normal" consumption tax like a sales tax would. It would both cost us directly when we buy, but would also jack the price of anything and everything for which fossil fuels play a role at any point - manufacturing, transportation, etc. Anything made of plastics which use petroleum as a feedstock will see prices go up. Anything transported by truck, deisel train, or deisel ship will see prices go up. This is a double whammy to the tax payer because not only are you paying a tax on consumption, but you are actually paying a HIGHER tax on equivalent consumption because the price of what you're buying is higher because of the fossil fuel taxation costs involved.

Um, you realise that a carbon tax will not be "targeted consumption" like some luxury tax on yachts or something would be? Everybody uses fossil fuels, at least everybody who drives a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine. Everybody buys products which are either made out of or transported with fossil fuels.

Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Guess what? Neither of these amendments apply to the issue of issuing our currency.

Art. I.8 says that one of Congress' powers is "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Guess what? Coining money and regulating the value of it is issuing a currency. Now here's the kicker. Art I.10 specifically says,

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

What this means is that even by your pedantic "coin money" argument, the states are STILL SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN to do so.

As such, per the 10th amendment, coining money and issuing currency are delegated to the federal government AND prohibited for the states.

I've heard the old "states issued currency" before the Civil War argument. No, they didn't. States and individual banks could issue notes that were based IN the federal currency - meaning that they were based off of and synched to the currency that had been issued and coined by the federal government.

The states CERTAINLY were not issuing separate and independent units of money apart from the American dollar, such as BJ Lawson and his group in Pittsboro are trying to do. THAT is unconstitutional on its face.

Huh?

In interviews, BJ Lawson has said that he does not support corporations being able to exercise rights under the Constitution. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, as early as the 1890s, disagreed with Mr. Lawson, and ruled that corporations did indeed have the same rights as individual citizens (i.e. free speech, free assembly, etc.), BECAUSE corporations - like any other voluntary association - are made up of individual citizens. You and your group don't lose the right to assemble, speak, worship, etc. just because your association involves profit-making.

and the republican party needs to get past constipated blue haired dyspeptics who are obsessed with the idea that every moral wrong must be prohibited by federal statute, Constitution be damned.

Well, honestly, I have no idea what relevance this has to the discussion, regarding Frank Roche or any others.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.