DownEast Republicans line up the Circular Firing Squad rather than deal with one of the most important issues facing the East | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Republicans are really good at some things, and not so good at other things.

    One thing they are superb at is Circular Firing Squads. And we've seen another example of this in the House 6 campaign.

    Here's the background. Pat McCrory, as the presumptive Republican nominee for Governor is being challenged by a number of conservatives about his support of the United Nations' Agenda 21 movement. McCrory, as mayor of Charlotte, took some positions on specific issues that some people, particularly TEA Party types, interpret as being consistent with what Agenda 21 is pushing. While we have seen no evidence that McCrory has subscribed to the Agenda 21 paradigm per se, it does appear that some of his positions on facets of Agenda 21 have caused concerns, principally among conservatives.

    Mattie Lawson is running for the Republican nomination for the House 6 seat against recently re-minted veteran Democrat Arthur Williams and first-time candidate Jeremy Adams.

    Lawson received an email from one of her supporters questioning McCrory's position(s) on Agenda 21. She forwarded the email to her campaign team. Somehow Adams picked it up. But rather than deal with the issue (Agenda 21) Adams spun it as a loyalty issue...whether Lawson was supporting McCrory... and as an opportunity to curry favor with McCrory and his supporters.

    Sure enough, it worked. Former GOP congressional candidate Ashley Woolard immediately sent out an email to his mailing list blasting Lawson, not on the issue (Agenda 21) but on the issue of her support for McCrory. Woolard stated that: "I know for a fact that Pat McCrory does not support Agenda 21." In the meantime, Lawson had retracted the email originally sent as a confidential internal communication within her campaign team and apologized for any dissension it may have caused, but not backing down from her opposition to Agenda 21 or her concern for what McCrory's position is on the various facets of Agenda 21 as they may impact House District 6.

    So what you've got are two Republicans (Adams and Woolard) taking shots at fellow Republican Lawson, not over a major issue (Agenda 21) but rather over who's supporting whom for Governor.

    Woolard told the Observer that he did not believe one Republican should be challenging another Republican (in another campaign), yet that is exactly what he did to Lawson.
Mattie Lawson speaking to the folks at the latest Candidates forum in Beaufort County.     photo by Stan Deahterage

    Lawson told us: "I believe Agenda 21 is a major issue that needs to be addressed by candidates at all levels. I think there is no exception for anyone running for Governor. Many of my supporters want to know where all of the Republican candidates stand on this major issue. While I regret Jeremy and Ashley tried to make this into a party "loyalty" issue, I think Agenda 21 is an important issue to be discussed in the campaign and I would hope Pat McCrory would do so and I have confidence that he will. I want to be sure he knows how many people in House 6 feel about some of these issues. Furthermore, I would urge him and his campaign to take a strong position in opposition to the United Nations seeking to interfere with internal American issues. There are so many facets to Agenda 21 and how this initiative impacts state and local policy making is important. As a member of the Republican NC Resolution Committee, I see this is a compelling topic for our state Republican Party as at least four separate resolutions have been received raising awareness of this threat to our freedom."

    Adams says he opposes Agenda 21, or at least many of its initiatives. Woolard has not spoken to it in his communications with us. He has stuck to the party issues.

    Commentary

    Mattie Lawson is, in our opinion, spot on target on this issue. Agenda 21, and more specifically, its impact on public policy at the national, state and local levels in America is a major issue and should be, not only addressed, but thoroughly addressed in this campaign season.

    We do not believe a constructive approach to addressing Agenda 21 is to make it a party loyalty issue. Far from it. Many of the facets of Agenda 21 are, in our opinion, neither good nor bad per se. It is the implementation of the objectives inherent in Agenda 21. But at the macro level the paramount issue, we believe, is American sovereignty. It is bad public policy for American public policy to be dictated by the UN.

    Having said that, we believe that the implementation of a number of issues that are inherent within the Agenda 21 scheme deserve serious consideration. One such issue is private property rights vs central planning and control. Just consider the issue of global warming and sea level rise.

    Few issues are more important to folks Downeast than the proposed regulations being considered by a "blue ribbon" state panel for controlling land use planning and coastal development. Where does Pat McCrory stand on that issue? We trust he will consider the thinking of Downeasterners on this issue and we need more debate on this issue, even within the Republican Party. Lawson is entirely correct to raise the issue.

    Another major issue involved in the Agenda 21 movement is the impact that some of the proposals coming from various UN groups will have on the fishing industry in House District 6. And there are many other similar issues, from natural gas exploration to transportation planning to forestry management and agriculture in Eastern North Carolina. We applaud Lawson for spotlighting this Agenda 21 paradigm.

    And we would hope that Republican leaders will address the issues from a more mature approach than who is supporting whom politically. The last thing Eastern North Carolina needs is another circular firing squad Downeast.

    And while we're at it, we would offer the following suggestions to Mr. McCrory:

    The overarching approach taken to Agenda 21 should be to guard and protect American sovereignty. No UN-based idea should be translated into American public policy without the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the U. S. Senate. (Art. II, Sec 2, Para 2).

    All Agenda 21 initiatives must be based on solid science. No more global warming fiascoes.

    At the state level the implementation of public policy must be based on solid science, proper vetting and economic reasonableness.

    Private property rights must be scrupulously protected with any infringement showing a compelling state interest and reasonable due process. Eminent domain reform is essential as the first step in considering Agenda 21-like proposals. De-valuing private property must be considered as a "taking" as well as the direct elimination of jobs establishing a fundamental right to be re-educated at public expense.

    The paramount application of state policy should be based on the fundamental principle of maximum reasonable decision-making at the lowest practicable level with the corollary to that being the Golden Rule: "those who supply the gold make the rules." That is to say, the taxpayers should be the dominant consideration in the regulations imposed on them.

    No "unfunded mandates" imposed on local governments.

    Agenda 21 shall not be used as a means for redistribution of wealth.

    No Agenda 21-derived policy shall infringe on fundamental natural law rights, such as the right to locate/relocate at will, the right to procreate at private expense, or the right to retain and cultivate one's traditions and culture.

    There're more, but this would be a good start for Mr. McCrory to begin with.


    And finally, to Messrs. Adams, Woolard et. al. we would say: A Real Republican supports a candidate not because of the party label but because of the positions they hold. And a Conservative Republican supports a candidate because they demonstrate a commitment to fundamental conservative principles and are never afraid to be challenged on those principles, but welcome debate of the application of those principles. When conservative principles prevail, everyone wins.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )



Comments

( April 28th, 2012 @ 2:24 pm )
 
Again one of my opponents has chosen to whine about "he said/she said...," "she did it first..." and other such trivial matters. I will not respond point by point to such childishness.

There are too many more important issues to be talking about in this campaign, such as how to turn the economy around in our state, how the state can prevent further damage to our nation by Barack Obama and especially how House District 6 can help complete the job begun by the Republican majority in the last session of the Legislature. Mr. Adams' continuing insistence on going off on tangents serves no useful purpose, either in finding solutions to the real problems facing our district or in helping voters determine who will best deal with those issues.

I regret that I initially fell for Mr. Adam's attempts to call attention to himself by such tactics as using quotes out of context and parsing words. I won’t participate in such childishness. If Mr. Adam's wants to dwell on trivial matters he is certainly free to do so. I'm going to focus on the important issues in this campaign.

Barack Obama and his arrogant czars and bureaucrats are ruining this country, from an insidious attempt to subjugate American sovereignty to the United Nations, all the way down to diving rules on our beaches, without our state officials standing up to him. That must stop. The Republican Legislature passed SB 2 to prevent the implementation of ObamaCare in this state. A Democrat governor vetoed it. We must elect a Republican governor and enough conservative Republicans to override any veto if need be. And the way we do that is to focus on the issues that are important not to politicians, but to the people of Eastern North Carolina. Our people do not care who decided first to run in this election or what conversations were held between potential candidates. Nonsense! That kind of nonsense is exactly why so many people are disgusted with politicians and government today. Let’s find ways to get the People's job done. I call upon Mr. Adams and all candidates to join me in focusing on what we need to do to turn this state around and restore constitutional government in North Carolina and in Washington, D.C. In November let’s send Mr. Obama into retirement.
( April 27th, 2012 @ 8:45 am )
 
As publisher of BCN, no reasonable person will suggest, openly, that I am stepping inside that circle, or even standing along its perimeter, firing along with the others.

What a reasonable person can say; however, is that I will publish any adequately presented commentary, or comments from anyone. If I find the time, I will publish all decent press releases as well - even ones from Democrats seeking delegates to represent themselves to their National Convention in Charlotte.

Man, what was that all about?

As someone who cares deeply about this county and its father-state, I want the very best candidate to represent us to Raleigh. With both Mattie and Jeremy, I am convinced that we may have that person.

With Arthur: Not so much.
( April 27th, 2012 @ 6:47 am )
 
And for the record, I oppose Agenda 21 and any efforts by anyone anywhere at the sacrifice of our individual sovereignty and the honest social contract we make with specific levels of our federalized government.
( April 27th, 2012 @ 6:43 am )
 
Mr Cayton, et al,

Challenging a principle or an action on its merits should always be within the realm of fair play.

But placing blame for a firing circle when my candidacy and my person has been under attack since day three (many, many unfounded attacks, some withdrawn from the internet and some not. At one point 50% of my opponents website was dedicated to me, including a whole page because I was "whining" about her attacking me after we agreed to run a clean race) and then suddenly when my campaign responds, there is a response from you?

Where were you two months ago? You certainly weren't chastising your candidate for her personal negative (and mostly false) attacks.

You also seem to notice when one candidate was picked by a faction in Raleigh, but not your own candidate by another faction in Raleigh despite that she admitted that she was selected on tape in your forum.

You want to put forth a legislative candidate who's best trick is just attacking and sidelining other members of the party?

When Pat McCrory wins, when I win, when half a dozen other Republican candidates win that have been polarized by her campaign (and her choosing folks who she herself called RINOs only a year ago over other local candidates)... how is she going to come back from that? She cannot then support me, or Pat McCrory, or any of the half dozen others she has been sidelining because she has been tearing us down during the primary?

Before we started this race we agreed that we would run our own clean races and then whoever would win, would then support the other in the general elections. Be honest. That cannot happen any longer after months of attacks.

By all means, please criticize the application of conservative principles. Everyone certainly should do that. But this hypocrisy of trying to lay blame on others for this rift has got to stop.

This rift was started by one person and one campaign and it most certainly was not mine or the people who realized towards the end of the primary campaign that I was the strongest Constitutional Conservative candidate and then in turn backed me.

You cannot turn back time unfortunately. Perhaps Raleigh should have made a better "selection".



Resist the Urge to Merge Editorials, Beaufort Observer, Op-Ed & Politics, Bloodless Warfare: Politics Steve Forbes to Campaign for Dan Forest for Lt. Governor

HbAD0

 
Back to Top