Interview with Sean Haugh, Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate (Part Two)

Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics

As the 2014 midterm elections are quickly approaching, a large amount of the nation’s attention has turned to North Carolina, a state that many consider a swing state after it flipped from blue to red between the 2008 and 2012 elections. The battle has mainly focused on Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis. There is, however, a third player in this traditionally two-party game: Libertarian Sean Haugh. The Durham pizza delivery man has gained a fair amount of attention thanks to his multiple YouTube videos, and currently has five percent of polled North Carolinians supporting him. Haugh previously ran for the US Senate in 2002 and had served as the national political director for the Libertarian National Committee.

I went to Durham to sit down with Haugh and discuss why he thinks he can win this race. In the second part of my two-part interview with him, Haugh and I talked about the problems surrounding his two opponents, the episode in Ferguson, Mo. and his main method of campaigning: YouTube.

If you have not yet read Part One of this interview, you can find it here.

File:Sean Haugh.JPG

United States Senate candidate Sean Haugh (Photo courtesy of Rachel Mills)

Alex Thomas: Let’s talk about your opponents. The race has mainly been focused on Speaker Tillis and Senator Hagan, with neither side being able to confidentially secure a majority of voters. A September 10th poll by Rasmussen has Senator Hagan up over Speaker Tillis by six points, while a month ago a similar poll by the organization had Speaker Tillis up by five points. Why do you think neither of them can get a majority of people on their side?

Sean Haugh: Because the majority of voters see them for what they are: people who represent corporate special interests and not the people. I found it amusing that Senator Hagan had commissioned a poll that she was touting a couple of days ago, and right there in the stuff that she was trying to point out, her negatives still outweighed her positives. But, her negatives are closer to her positives than Speaker Tillis’ are.

I hold the opinion that Speaker Tillis is completely unelectable. He has no point being in this race. He’s just out there to fly the flag of his party. He has no chance because he has lost such significant demographics. So many people have looked at his performance in the General Assembly and want to reject him.

I’m getting a lot of support simply because I’m not either of them.

AT: You are currently situated around five percent. That is according to a Civitas Institute poll, which, unlike the previously mentioned poll, did actually mention your name directly —

SH: I don’t consider a poll legitimate unless it mentions me by name. That Rasmussen poll that you mentioned is worthless because it’s “some other candidate”. It’s so bizarre to me that the political class and  a lot of media are so wrapped up in the Washington game, that they, too, have lost any sense of reality.

One thing that really amazes me about this race and the lack of legitimacy of media coverage of it is that they are all focused on control of the Senate. That seems to be the only thing that matters to them at all.

A lot of the times, they really just don’t know what to do to me. I just don’t fit into their conception of reality.

AT: Why do you suppose you don’t fit into it?

SH: Because I’m actually talking about issues that matter to people. You watch this news coverage, and there’s almost nothing about how this election is going to affect the people of North Carolina. It’s all about how it’s going to affect what happens underneath the dome in Washington, DC.

I think that is one of the reasons why more and more people are getting their news from Twitter and Facebook instead of the mainstream media. They can actually get real news. Like a lot of people who live in the 21st century, that’s how I get my news.

I talk to people who just watch cable news, and just wonder how they hardly know anything that’s going on in this world. They certainly know plenty about sharks and the Kardashians, but not much about, for example, what happened in Ferguson, Mo. a month ago.

AT: Since you mentioned Ferguson, let’s say a similar incident occurred here in North Carolina. If you were Senator, how would you address a Ferguson at home?

SH: We do have Ferguson here at home. The only difference is that we didn’t shut down the city and protest over it.

There are three cases here in Durham alone since our current police chief, Jose Lopez, took office. Situations where people died through interacting with the police, but not necessarily in confrontation. One in particular is the case of Jesus Huerta, who was shot in the back seat of a patrol car. They still maintain that he managed to sneak a gun in and shoot himself, even though he was handcuffed in the back of the police cruiser.

Overall, the police really have changed over the last few years to really be opposed to protecting and serving the people while having a good community relationship. These kind of things have happened all across the country.

One thing that really concerns me is the militarization of police. To me, that’s a sign of just how opposed to the people the police have become. Why do you need this big, mine resistant armored vehicle for local police work? It’s completely unnecessary unless you want to go to war with the people.

What happened in Ferguson is really a national problem. One thing I would like to do as a Senator is stop this 1033 Program of giving police department and local law enforcement military weapons.

But, I’m not sure how much else I could do besides being supportive of local groups who can really address their local issues. The only way to restore that relationship between the public and the police is for the public and the police to work it out themselves.

AT: So far, your campaign efforts has consisted of around 30 YouTube videos explaining your positions on a variety of issues, ranging from immigration reform to Israel. Have you found this method of campaigning to be successful in attracting support?

SH: Absolutely. It is so easy to share videos and it’s incredibly inexpensive. It costs me around $50 to make each video, and I’ve been able to get my message out to a very large number of people.

In addition, I’ve been able to establish a larger social media presence than either of my opponents because I actually use it to engage people, talk to people and listen to people. They [my opponents] don’t seem to understand Facebook and Twitter in particular. They just use it as a bullhorn to get people to listen to them.

People being able to talk to me and get to know me as a real human being really sets me apart from my two opponents. I mean, you call up Senator Hagan’s office now to try to get some help with something or ask a question or state your opinion. More often than not you’ll get a busy signal. To me, that’s an insult in 2014. Nobody needs a busy signal anymore. You can at least put up a voicemail saying, “I’m sorry we’re so busy. We can’t take your call right now, but you can leave a message or we can call you back in a little bit.”

Getting back to YouTube, it is certainly a lot of fun. It really gives me the opportunity to present myself and my ideas in the exact way I want to. Since government is still kind of locked in the 20th century, it’s a lot less regulated than if I was making TV ads. If I was doing TV ads, I would have to include a lot of other language, so YouTube is very liberating.

I’m really enjoying this campaign a lot more than 2002 for exactly that reason. I can just be myself, say exactly what I want to say in exactly the way I want to say it. The technology makes it easy for me.

AT: You did not get a chance to participate in the September 3rd debate with Speaker Tillis and Senator Hagan. Do you think you will get an opportunity to debate them on a public forum?

SH: I am invited to a debate on October 9th sponsored by the League of Women Voters and WCET-TV. It’ll be down in Wilmington, and at various points all three of us had accepted that offer, but now everything is really in flux.

Once it was pointed out to my opponents that I would be there, all of a sudden they were a little bit less certain they would be there, too. They are incredibly afraid to face me at all. I really see these debates that don’t include me as them auditioning for their corporate special interest masters instead of actually trying to address the people.

There has been not only just my supporters but voters who want a real debate and don’t necessarily support me putting pressure on groups like WRAL and the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters to include me in a future debate.

Having been down this road before in 2002, I hope I’m being too cynical when I suggest that that’s the last thing either of them want. They [his opponents] are the ones controlling the process. I don’t blame debate organizers at all when I’m excluded because it’s not their call. It’s totally up to Hagan and Tillis, and they have both made it very clear that they don’t really want to face me or the people.

Things change every day. I’m still planning on going to Wilmington on October 9th, and we’ll see if either of them have the guts to show up.

AT: If there was one thing you could tell the people of North Carolina that could convince them to vote for you, what would that be?

SH: I’m the only candidate that wants to stop all war. We’ve been in the state of perpetual war for over fifteen years now. There are people in this country that are about to become a voting age that have known nothing but war. The majority of Americans and North Carolinians look at this and know that it’s untenable. We have to do something else other than just more bombing.

It’s not radical or extremist anymore to talk about libertarian issues like stopping all war or spending money that we don’t have. Everybody knows this debt we have is unsustainable, and yet my Democratic and Republican opponents promise nothing else but increasing that debt.

The main thing is if you’re voting for either the Democrat or the Republican, even though there are differences between the two, you are also voting for more war and more debt. It’s time that we send a message to the Democrats and the Republicans that we want something different.

Interview with Sean Haugh, Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate (Part One)

Elections, North Carolina Politics, Politics

As the 2014 midterm elections are quickly approaching, a large amount of the nation’s attention has turned to North Carolina, a state that many consider a swing state after it flipped from blue to red between the 2008 and 2012 elections. The battle has mainly focused on Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis. There is, however, a third player in this traditionally two-party game: Libertarian Sean Haugh. The Durham pizza delivery man has gained a fair amount of attention thanks to his multiple YouTube videos, and currently has five percent of polled North Carolinians supporting him. Haugh previously ran for the US Senate in 2002 and had served as the national political director for the Libertarian National Committee.

I went to Durham to sit down with Haugh and discuss why he thinks he can win this race. In Part One of my two-part interview with him, Haugh and I talked about his motivation for running for Senate, how he would respond to multiple issues facing the United States currently and what makes this election so unique from his previous attempt to become Senator in 2002.

File:Sean Haugh 3.JPG

United States Senate candidate Sean Haugh (Photo courtesy of Rachel Mills)

Alex Thomas: Why are you running for United States Senate?

Sean Haugh: Because I can’t count on the Democrats or Republicans to talk about stopping this state of perpetual war or spending more money than we have.

I had retired from politics in 2010, and I was very happily retired. But, as I saw this race shaping up, I thought there was a need for a really strong libertarian voice, especially now that we know my opponents are really not going to talk about much of anything besides their own kind of disassociating talking points.

I just wanted to walk into the voting booth myself in November and be able to vote for something besides more war and more debt.

AT: You did run for this Senate seat in 2002, a race which was won by Elizabeth Dole. Do you feel this election is different from that attempt? What’s your attitude towards this election compared to 2002?

SH: From their perspective, I don’t think things have changed at all.

Back in 2002, I thought it was very odd that, at the time, I had lived here less than 20 years and was a lot more connected to life in North Carolina than either of my opponents. I mean, Elizabeth Dole had to claim she was living in her mother’s house to run for this seat. This time, even though my opponents have better North Carolina credibility, they’re both still completely disconnected from how the average person lives.

For me, it’s just a completely different world compared to 2002 for two main reasons. One is that everybody knows what a libertarian is now. I don’t have to spend much time explaining to people what a libertarian is. We have a very favorable view to the point where we have a lot of people who aren’t really libertarian try to claim to be libertarian because it is cachet, so it’s nice in that aspect.

Also, one major thing that’s changed is social media. Back in 2002, we didn’t have Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, that sort of thing. So, in order for me to get my message out, I would have to drive all over the state. On some occasions, I would drive three hours to talk to a dozen people, then drive home afterwards. Now, I can do most of my campaigning from home with the YouTube videos and also on Facebook and Twitter. I’m very easily accessible. People can engage me.

Before, I would go do a talk radio interview, the show would end and I would be done. Now, listeners can continue to engage me after the fact. If people have any kind of follow-up questions or didn’t get a question into the show, they can ask me on Twitter or Facebook. That’s allowed me to be able to get my message out very inexpensively.

AT: Your career experiences range from serving as an administrative assistant for the Duke University Hospital to now working as a pizza delivery man. Have you learned anything from your diverse employment history that can help you win this race?

SH: Oh, yes. One thing I love about my job delivering pizza now is that it keeps me connected with people. I deliver to about 20 families a night, and we have a very diverse city here in Durham. As a result, I’m meeting people from all walks of life every night. It really keeps me connected to what life is like for most of us who are trying to make ends meet.

My job at Duke University Hospital was also very informative to me. I worked with people on their insurance, especially with Medicaid and Medicare patients. It just gave me a real firsthand knowledge of what it’s like to try to be on government benefits. All the bureaucratic Hell they had to go through just so they could keep up with the most substandard benefits that we offer here in the United States, and I’m sure in the intervening time it has gotten worse not just for patients, but for providers, too.

One odd job I had in the past was doing telephone surveys for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) where some naïve researchers thought, “Oh, it would be a really great idea to poll doctors and see how they feel about Medicaid and Medicare and understand what they are facing. Maybe we can incorporate that into policy.” Of course, by the time that reaches the floors of Congress, it’s completely distorted from reality.

But, that experience also gave me a lot of perspective from providers on why a lot of them are getting out of taking care of Medicaid and Medicare patients, as well as why government makes it so difficult for people who need healthcare to be able to get it.

With most of the other jobs I’ve had in my life, that’s the common theme. Being out in public, being in the customer service role and really having to listen to people and get to know what their perspective is.

AT: Your campaign slogan is “Stop All War”. What exactly do you mean by “all war”?

SH: War has infected so much of our public policy. It’s not just the direct war and drone warfare that we are conducting all around the world, but it’s also how we arm everybody in the world. We really need to stop arm sales.

You look at the Middle East where everybody, friend or foe, is armed with our weapons and training. There is the possible exception of Hamas, but they can easily get our stuff second hand. The first thing we have to do in the Middle East is stop the flow of arms to the region.

But, “Stop All War” also involves the militarization of police at home as well as culture war, even though the latter isn’t really a federal issue. I don’t want the United States Senate to start ruling on matters on culture war.

The chance to be able to run for US Senate has given me the opportunity to talk about how this war mentality has infected all of our thinking. We have been so used to being at war for so long, that now we are really turning on each other. There is just no political solution that begins with the half of the country that disagrees with you dropping dead. I’ve been able to use the campaign as an opportunity to talk about how we have to talk and listen to each other, and sometimes agree to disagree. We’re all in this America thing together, and we’ve got to develop a mutual respect for each other again if we’re going to be able to solve any of our problems and move forward as a country.

AT: Since we are talking about the Middle East, let’s start talking about your position on multiple issues by discussing the threat of ISIS. Over the past few weeks, every political leader has been talking about what the United States and its allies should do to diminish ISIS’ power in the Middle East. If you were currently Senator, what plan would you advocate for?

SH: Well, not doing the same thing over and over again that created this Islamic state in the first place.

You listen to that debate between my opponents from a couple of weeks ago [September 3rd], and, to me, the theme of it was “Well, if you loved Iraq War I and Iraq War II, then you’re going to really love Iraq War III.”

They [My opponents] don’t have any solution besides more bombing, and that’s what really created the problems to being with. We have been interfering in the affairs with the Middle East for so long, we created this blowback with these groups who, again, are armed with our weapons and our training. We’ve just become more and more virulent when we think we’ve gotten rid of one threat and then much greater threat arises in their place.

So, the first thing we have to do is just stop interfering in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries and stop that flow of arms to them.

One thing that really upsets me is seeing John McCain on TV. I can’t believe anybody takes him seriously anymore. Last year he was saying we have to arm ISIS to defeat Assad, and now he’s saying we have to help Assad defeat ISIS. People will listen to him say this stuff with a straight face.

Then you look at my Democratic opponent. Senator Hagan is now trying to say, “Oh, I’ve been trying to warn President Obama we need more bombing months ago.” All they think of is that throwing more bombs fixes the problem.

There’s no magic wand we can wave to make this problem go away, but we can undermine it by going back to what Washington and Jefferson counseled, which was free trade with all and entangling alliances with none.

AT: One of the biggest issues that faces my generation is college tuition and, more specifically, student loans. Student loan debt has accumulated to around $1 trillion, which is second in consumer debt only to mortgages. What do you think needs to be done to make that number and the amount of students in debt decreases?

SH: Well, the first thing we have to do is stop flooding the higher education system with federal dollars because it’s just basic economics. If the federal government is going to put all of this money out there for it [an education], then the universities are going to raise their prices to suck up all of that money.

I went to Tufts University in the early 1980s, and at the time tuition was about $8,000 a year. The whole college experience for four years would probably be around $50,000. Now, it’s a quarter of a million dollars. It just doesn’t make economic sense anymore to go to college and take out loans for that.

One aspect of that that really bothers me is when people get out of college and they’re in this mountain of debt. That really restricts people’s freedom. You really don’t have the freedom to be creative with what you want to do with your life. Keeping people in all this debt is a way to control people. I’m in favor for forgiving a lot of student debt.

I don’t know if you remember a few months ago, but President Obama had this happy press conference about forgiving a bunch of student loan debt, and really that plan was just more corporate welfare. It was giving a lot of banks the full value of a lot of these outstanding loans which they will probably never collect. There are so many ways we use issues to transfer wealth to big business and large corporations, and that was one of them.

So, I think it would take a little bit of time, but just cutting off that flow of money from the federal government would not only make college more affordable again, but it would make more economic sense to go to college.

Stay tuned for Part Two of my interview with Haugh, in which we discuss the problems surrounding his two opponents, the episode in Ferguson, Mo. and his main method of campaigning: YouTube.

Red 4 Ed and Bias in the Classroom

CRDaily, North Carolina Politics

The fine line between one’s professional life and one’s personal life

As the year for public schools are in full swing, some teachers in North Carolina are less worried about making sure that their students do well in their class, and more upset about North Carolina’s education funding that was passed in this year’s budget. A coalition of teachers throughout the state are fighting against the Republican passed measures that ended teacher pay boosts for those with advanced college degrees, as well as other measures that freeze current teacher pay.

This coalition, Red 4 Ed NC, is a not for profit group of public school teachers that, to quote from their Facebook page, are “doing the best for our students through the demonstration of teaching.” This fact becomes a bit confusing based on the fact that half of the state budget is focused on education, and the state has passed measures  to increase the use of technology in local schools across the state. This fact isn’t mentioned on the Red4Ed’s website or on their Facebook page. Furthermore, their agenda, according to an October 3rd article by the News and Observer, is to support “a fair balance between workload, expectations and compensation for our teachers”.

In addition, the group is encouraging teachers to wear red on Wednesdays in protests of the budget until better laws are passed, bringing politics into an unnecessary battle ground of the classroom. Schools from all over the state have already posted their staff members wearing red garments on the group’s Facebook page, including these showing the fists for solidarity. These are the people teaching your children, ladies and gentlemen.

Photo: Weddington High School getting RED for Public ED.

Now, I’m not writing this to debate education funding, or talk about whether the budget signed by Governor McCrory was right or wrong. I am writing because of the sole purpose that the teachers who wear red are keeping political diversity out of the classrooms by promoting a political agenda, which could make some students feel uncomfortable.

Whether the teachers know this or not, a lot of kids are actually knowledgeable on politics. They follow the current events, and some are comfortable talking about it in school. But when a teacher promotes an atmosphere promoting one view over another, it is hard for a student who has an opposite view to feel comfortable, and it may do more harm than good to the students to talk about their differences.

Take for example an event that happened at North Rowan High School last year. A teacher, Ms. Tanya Dixon-Neely, verbally abused a conservative student for speaking ill about President Obama’s policies, and talked down to the boy about why he should not badmouth the President, as it could lead to jail time, which is false. The Rowan Salisbury School System briefly suspended Ms. Dixon-Neely, stating “The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students.”

This an obvious violation of the student’s freedom of speech, but how does it feel to not even be allowed to have  a different view in the classroom? For students like Daniel Glowacki, not too well.

On October 20th, 2010, Daniel was kicked out of his economics class by his teacher, Johnson McDowell, for not supporting homosexual marriage. A lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center explained that the Howell Public School District in New Jersey allowed teachers to sell purple shirts in support of the late Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University freshman who killed himself last year after a roommate streamed an Internet video of Clementi kissing a male student. When McDowell, who was wearing one of these shirts, was asked by Daniel why it was permissible to display this viewpoint in school, he turned the question on Daniel and asked him whether he supported homosexual marriage. When Daniel replied no due to his Catholic religion, McDowell told Daniel and another student who shared Daniel’s views to leave class.

Now, while there has not been any documented cases of pro-Red 4 Ed teachers acting against students, the power of a piece of cloth is stronger than what this coalition sees it as, and it would be disgusting to have one teacher punish a student for having a different viewpoint than them on this matter. We can see with examples like Ms. Dixon-Neely and Mr. McDowell that teachers have crossed this line before, and all it takes was one person with a different view than them.

Teachers shouldn’t promote a political cause once they are in the classroom. Once they open their room door and sit behind their desk, they are no longer the political activists one may see on the streets. They are role models for children, and they help make the next generation of Americans great by promoting the  knowledge of how things work. However, they also let the students form their own opinions outside of the class using these facts. They shouldn’t attempt to create an uncomfortable atmosphere by promoting their own beliefs, and should leave politics in their personal lives.

Think of it as if an environmental science teacher only showed Gasland to their class. The film, which bashes the use of natural gas fracturing, would not provide the whole story to the students, but rather promote to leftists views of the film’s creator, Josh Fox. Students would only learn about the negatives of fracking, and none of the positive benefits it may have. Same thing if the teacher only showed Fracknation, a film that is devoted towards the positive benefits of fracking. Neither situation does not create a dialogue because only one side is being shown. Now, in this situation, the teacher could just show two films to inform their students of both sides, but that is difficult to do on the subject of showing support by wearing a t-shirt.

If teachers who take part for these events cared about creating a comfortable learning environment for their students, they wouldn’t bring their own views onto their kids. No one wants to abridge the First Amendment for anyone, but there is a time and a place for everything. Throwing politics in front of children’s faces can do more harm than good, no matter how noble the cause may come off as. This does not need to be enforce by some law, but rather common sense. It’s better to create a diversity of beliefs rather than promote an environment with a lack of one.

Student Congress Goes After UNC College Republicans


Chapel Hill- In a seemingly shocking move, the UNC Student Congress voted to cut the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill College Republican’s budget from last year by 75% in one fell swoop.

On Tuesday August 27, 2013, the UNC College Republicans appeared in front of the Student Congress Finance Committee to request an allocation of funds from Student Congress for the upcoming semester. The money (about $8,000) would have covered most of the expenses of two speakers: Katie Pavlich and Ann McElhinny.

Katie Pavlich is a New York Times number one best seller, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up, and editor of She is extremely well known for her heated debates against Piers Morgan both in studio and on Twitter regarding gun control. Ms. Pavlich was expected to come speak on current gun issues on campus and across North Carolina

Ann McElhinny is the co-producer, along with her husband, of the movie FrackNation, and known for her work in exposing the hypocrisy of the environmental movement in her previous documentary Mine Your Own Business. Ann is known for her confrontational style and ability to discuss the issue across both ideological lines.

College Republican treasurer Amy Ellmers was there to present the budget in front of Student Congress. After giving her presentation on the budget, she was asked to defend the $8,000 allocation the College Republican Executive Board had request from student congress. Despite the repeated attempts to remind the Finance Committee about the previous successes, including the more than $12,000 spent on procuring the John Stossel and Howard Dean debate, in which close to 600 people came, and Stossel filmed his show for Fox News in the Great Hall the next day, Student Congress arbitrarily cut funding to $3000.

Chair of the College Republicans Peter McClelland and Student Congress member broke down the numbers for the Carolina Review. “The average cut from people that received funds on Tuesday was 14.6%. The Median cut was 4.7%.” He continued, “Our cut was 62.2% from our request. The numbers for last year’s annual appropriations are not readily available on the Congress website, but we had about $12,500, which means this is $24.72% of what was appropriated to us the last time we appeared before Congress.” That constitutes a 75.28% cut! He concluded, “even adjusted to a semester basis, it is a pittance of what was allocated before, 49.44% of per semester allocations.”

The question remains as to why did Student Congress cut most of their funds, even after all the successes of the College Republicans.

NC Dems Look to Solve Financial Woes with… Alchemy?


As reported by WRAL today, the North Carolina Democratic Party is in extreme trouble financially as their executive board, still reeling from the sex scandal under previous Chair David Parker, is still infighting. Today, fist vice-chairwoman Nina Szlosberg-Landis resigned from office citing personal differences and alleged bullying from the new state Chairman Randy Voller.

The vice-chair wrote very critically of the chair saying that many of the top donors felt uncomfortable working with Voller because of “some of the actions he has taken.” Voller was more kind in his statement, however, calling Szlosberg-Landis resignation “saddening,” and saying that she “served with distinction.” He also said that the party would welcome in any capacity.

Several Voller supporters were happy with the vice-chairwoman’s departure, Dr. John Hammond, a well-known party member cited an email which Szlosberg-Landis, whose jobs it is to fundraise for the party, solicited funds for House and Senate Caucuses instead of giving directly to the party. This infuriated him and several other activists, because the email stated it was “the best mechanism” for getting Democrats elected.

Voller critics, however, were quick to point out the contentions that were in the party. Many of Voller’s critics claim that despite the email, Szlosberg-Landis worked hard to raise thousands of dollars for the party. One critic, Frank Eaton even called outright for a vote of no confidence on Voller. Eaton stated in a video, “The first five months of his term have been contentious, and we find ourselves in the worst financial condition of our history. For the second time in two years, the Goodwin House is involved in an embarrassing scandal.”

But don’t worry NC Dems. Your prayers have been answered! According to the same WRAL report, despite budget woes, and staff reductions, two consultants have managed to keep their jobs. One consultant is Jim Neal who ran against Elizabeth Dole in 2007, and is a pro-gay activist. The other is Michael Carmichael, who is the answer to the Democrats prayer. Just who is this amazing consultant? According to his own website, Carmichael is a graduate of UNC-Charlotte, and currently lives in England. He moved there to study psychoactive drugs and alchemy: yes, you heard that right alchemy.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the explanation of alchemy is described as, “Pseudoscience focused on the attempt to change base metals into gold. Ancient alchemists believed that, under the correct astrological conditions, lead could be “perfected” into gold. They tried to hasten this transformation by heating and refining the metal in a variety of chemical processes, most of which were kept secret.”

The NC Dems should be excited! They now have a source of unlimited funds that will never run out! Carmichael can supply their campaign for years to come by simply turning metal into precious gold! He might want to be careful though. He does not want to turn the metal rocks, in whomever’s head hired him, into to gold…

Victory is Sweet


I woke up this morning, and for some reason the air seemed fresher, the grass greener, the color of the falling leaves more vivid. Lenoir was even serving meatball subs today. And I asked myself, what could possibly make this day even better? And then I remembered the historic victories secured by the Republicans last night, and my day got that much better. It seems that the stock market had the same reaction I did, with both the NASDAQ and DJIA notching two-year highs. And who can blame them? With the complete and utter failure of the Democrats’ agenda over the past two years, it’s nice to know that we’ll finally be getting some new blood come January.

2010 House Results


Surpassing even the 1994 Revolution, last night’s 60+ seat conversion in the House and 6+ conversion in the Senate is a loud and clear message from the American people that the Obama Agenda is not what this country needs nor wants and a return to sanity and clear-thinking is what is desired.

A special shout-out goes to the North Carolina General Assembly, where the GOP picked up not one, but two chambers. With 31 seats in the state senate (a veto-proof majority) and 66+ seats in the state House (depending on the returns in 4 still-outstanding races, also a possible veto-proof majority), conservatism will finally make itself heard in the halls of North Carolina state government, after wandering in the wilderness for over 100 years. That is change I can believe in.

I’ll also give a special shout-out to Bob Etheridge who, when he’s not wandering the streets mugging unsuspecting college students, apparently thinks it’s still Halloween and is pretending to be Al Gore. You sir, do your state, district, and party proud.