Category Archives: Charlotte

Patrick L. McCrory v US Department of Justice Loretta Lynch, Complaint for declaratory judgement, May 9, 2016, Legal authority recognizes transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII, North Carolina law accommodates transgender employees while protecting the bodily privacy rights of other state employees

Patrick L. McCrory v US Department of Justice Loretta Lynch, Complaint for declaratory judgement, May 9, 2016, Legal authority recognizes transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII, North Carolina law accommodates transgender employees while protecting the bodily privacy rights of other state employees

“Any biological man – regardless of whether he “identifies” or “expresses” himself as a man OR as a woman – now has the legal right under the City’s amended ordinance to access the most intimate of women’s facilities (and vice versa). Under the ordinance, Charlotte businesses may no longer offer or enforce sex-specific facilities and face penalties if they do.”…NC House Member Dan Bishop

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From the  Complaint for declaratory judgement filed in US District Court on May 9, 2016 by NC Governor Pat McCrory against the US Justice Department and Loretta Lynch.

“Plaintiffs Patrick L. McCrory, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina (“Governor McCrory”), and Frank Perry, in his official capacity as Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“Secretary Perry”), (collectively “plaintiffs”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States of America (“United States”), the United States Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, in her official capacity as United States Attorney General, and Vanita Gupta, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for their radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which would prevent plaintiffs from protecting the bodily privacy rights of state employees while accommodating the needs of transgendered state employees. The United States, through its Department of Justice (“Department”), by letters dated May 4, 2016, threatened legal action against Governor McCrory, Secretary Perry, and others, because plaintiffs intend to follow North Carolina law requiring public agencies to generally limit use of multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities to persons of the same biological sex. The Department contends that North Carolina’s common sense privacy policy constitutes a pattern or practice of discriminating against transgender employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because it does not give employees an unfettered right to use the bathroom or changing facility of their choice based on gender identity. The Department’s position is a baseless and blatant overreach. This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the Courts. The overwhelming weight of legal authority recognizes that transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII. If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress. In any event, North Carolina law allows plaintiffs to accommodate transgender employees while protecting the bodily privacy rights of other state employees, and nothing in Title VII prohibits such conduct or constitutes discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment of transgender employees. Moreover, the Department has similarly overreached in its interpretation of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (“VAWA”). Even if VAWA specifically includes gender identity as a protected class, the North Carolina law is not discriminatory because it allows accommodations based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender individuals.”

“18. Moreover, the overwhelming weight of authority has refused to expand Title VII protections to transgender status absent Congressional action. Courts consistently find that Title VII does not protect transgender or transsexuality per se. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 502 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Etsitty may not claim protection under Title VII based upon her transsexuality per se.”); Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653, 658 (S.D. Tex. April 3, 2008) (Atlas, J.) (acknowledging that “[c]ourts consistently find that transgendered persons are not a protected class under Title VII per se”); Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Congress intended the term ‘sex’ to mean ‘biological male or biological female,’ and not one’s sexuality or sexual orientation.”); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 2002 WL 31098541, at *6 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002) (“[T]he phrase ‘sex’ has not been interpreted to include sexual identity or gender identity disorders.”); Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 1084 (7th Cir. 1984) (“The words of Title VII do not outlaw discrimination against a person who has a sexual identity disorder….”); Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 667 F.2d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1982) (“Because Congress has not shown an intention to protect transsexuals, we hold that discrimination based on one’s transsexualism does not fall within the protective purview of [Title VII].”) 19. In any event, even if transgender employees were covered by Title VII, plaintiffs intend, and are authorized under North Carolina law, to accommodate such individuals in the terms and conditions of their employment. Title VII does not prohibit employers, including state employers, from balancing the special circumstances posed by transgender employees with the right to bodily privacy held by non-transgender employees in the workplace. Title VII allows gender specific regulations in the workplace. See Finnie v. Lee Cnty., Miss., 907 F. Supp. 2d 750, 772 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2012) (Title VII “was never intended to interfere in the promulgation and enforcement of personal appearance regulations by private employers.”); Jackson v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 122 F.3d 1066, 1066 (5th Cir. 1997) (an employer does not violate Title VII by imposing different grooming and dress standards for male and female employees); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 878 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We do not imply that all gender-based distinctions are actionable under Title VII. For example, our decision does not imply that there is any violation of Title VII occasioned by reasonable regulations that require male and female employees to conform to different dress and grooming standards”); Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 444 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (holding that Harrah’s grooming standards requiring women to wear makeup and styled hair and men to dress conservatively was not discriminatory because the policy did not impose unequal burdens on either sex); Willingham v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 507 F.2d 1084, 1091-92 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that a grooming policy concerning hair length differences for males and females did not constitute sex discrimination and noting that such a policy relates “more closely to the employer’s choice of how to run his business than to equality of employment opportunity”).

20. Plaintiffs desire to implement state employment policies that protect the bodily privacy rights of state employees in bathroom and changing facilities. Plaintiffs also desire to accommodate the needs of state employees based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender employees. Defendants instead threaten to force plaintiffs to implement their reinterpretation of Title VII and VAWA while ignoring the bodily privacy of plaintiffs’ employees. Such action by defendants threaten to expose plaintiffs to actual liability under Title VII, VAWA, and other provisions protecting the bodily privacy rights of employees in the workplace.”

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2827581/North-Carolina-s-Complaint-for-Declaratory.pdf

 

Bruce Springsteen Ringo Starr et al driven by egos agenda not concern for NC citizens, Charlotte ordinance endangered women and children, HB2 protects all citizens, NC registered sex offenders list proves danger, LGBT status not the problem or issue

Bruce Springsteen Ringo Starr et al driven by egos agenda not concern for NC citizens, Charlotte ordinance endangered women and children, HB2 protects all citizens, NC registered sex offenders list proves danger, LGBT status not the problem or issue

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”…Karl Marx

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

There is an epidemic of stupid, irrational political position and entertainment culture in this country.

Just because you can sing, entertain, act, etc. does not mean you are intelligent, paying attention, rational, etc.

Two recent examples:

Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr as well as numerous companies.

Apparently they believe that they are smarter or better informed than the folks in NC.

THEY ARE NOT!

Many people are missing the point.

The danger inherent in the Charlotte ordinance and protected by NC HB2 is allowing anyone to use the public bathroom of choice.

This has little to do with LGBT status.

It has to do primarily with documented sexual predators like the man in Charlotte who was convicted of molesting underage male(s).

North Carolina has statistics on registered sexual offenders.

For example:

Mecklenburg County (Charlotte):  894.

Guilford (Greensboro): 807.

From the NC Department Of Public Safety Offender Statistics:

“Statistics reflected on this page have been extracted from information entered by North Carolina Sheriff’s Offices into the NC Sex Offender and Public Protection Registry database. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation serves as the collection and entry point for this information.

These statistics provide approximate numbers. The accuracy of these statistics may be impacted by certain limitations such as delays or errors in processing information or delay or errors in the system’s operation.

Not all offenders are included in this report because of different registration requirements. Offenders whose status is listed as pending are not included in this report.”

http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/stats.aspx

So, as you can plainly see, the Charlotte ordinance was a stupid irresponsible idea and NC HB2 protects women and children.

My suggestion for all of us, those who are rational and care, is to boycott Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr and others who are acting irresponsible and stupid.

If you had planned to see them in concert, use your time and money more responsibly.

Learn the facts.

Quit being part of our dumbed down entertain culture.

 

Charlotte Bathroom ordinance NC HB2 fact vs fiction, North Carolina laws derived from established science not feelings, Charlotte ordinance number 7056 allowed transgenders to use bathroom of choice, Convicted sex offender proponent of LGBT access

Charlotte Bathroom ordinance NC HB2 fact vs fiction, North Carolina laws derived from established science not feelings, Charlotte ordinance number 7056 allowed transgenders to use bathroom of choice, Convicted sex offender proponent of LGBT accessCharlotte

“Any biological man – regardless of whether he “identifies” or “expresses” himself as a man OR as a woman – now has the legal right under the City’s amended ordinance to access the most intimate of women’s facilities (and vice versa). Under the ordinance, Charlotte businesses may no longer offer or enforce sex-specific facilities and face penalties if they do.”…NC House Member Dan Bishop

“You can’t fix stupid.”…Ron White

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

I looked for quite some time to find an article that linked to the Charlotte, NC ordinance allowing transgender folks to access the bathroom of choice, ignoring the safety of women and children.

Safety of women and children threatened?

One of the proponents of the ordinance was a documented sex offender. A man convicted of molesting underage boys.

Here he is with the mayor of Charlotte, Jennifer Roberts.

SeveranceMayorRoberts-Turner-1024x683

As Sean Hannity stated in 2008, “journalism is dead in this country.”

The articles I found in numerous searches, quoted or paraphrased the ordinance or quoted other articles doing so.

So I will begin by presenting access to Charlotte Ordinance Number 7056, passed on February 22, 2016 and intended to become effective April 1, 2016.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/307542321/Charlotte-Bathroom-ordinance-April-1-2016-Number-7056-allows-transgender-people-to-use-bathroom-of-their-choice

The ordinance can also be found here:

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/CityClerk/Ordinances/February%2022,%202016.pdf

Dan Bishop is a current member of the NC State House, District 104 and a lifelong citizen of Charlotte. His educational and professional background includes:

  • 25 years experience litigating complex business and local government controversies.
  • Ten times voted to Business North Carolina “Legal Elite.” Seven times selected by “Super Lawyers.” 2013-14 Best Lawyers.
  • Erwin, Bishop, Capitano & Moss, 1996-present.
  • Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, 1990-96.
  • University of North Carolina, J.D., high honors, 1990. Member, North Carolina Law Review.
  • B.S. Business Administration, highest distinction, 1986.

From Dan Bishop February 24, 2016.

“All Men Now Have a Legal Right to Access Women’s Facilities and Vice Versa

This past Monday night, Charlotte City Councilmembers thumbed their noses at the Governor and state law by adopting an illegal and state-preempted ordinance which creates special rights for persons who “identify” or choose to “express” themselves as the opposite sex, including the right to access bathrooms and showers contrary to their biological sex.

But it’s even worse than I have outlined previously – and it’s even worse than has so far been reported in the press. Let me explain…

Numerous commenters at Monday’s City Council meeting expressed their valid concern that males can pose as transgenders to gain access to women’s and girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. In reality, the amended ordinance, as adopted, outlaws sex-specific facilities completely.

In other words, just as it would be illegal for a business to discriminate by saying “whites only,” it is now illegal within Charlotte city limits to have “male only” or “female only” bathrooms, showers, etc.

Any biological man – regardless of whether he “identifies” or “expresses” himself as a man OR as a woman – now has the legal right under the City’s amended ordinance to access the most intimate of women’s facilities (and vice versa). Under the ordinance, Charlotte businesses may no longer offer or enforce sex-specific facilities and face penalties if they do.

Before the amendment, the public accommodations ordinance had two separate parts.

The first part prohibited denying anyone “the full and equal enjoyment of the … facilities … a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The second part prohibited discriminating on the basis of sex, but exempted “[r]estrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses, and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private.”

Adding the new categories of “sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression” to the second part of the public accommodations ordinance would not have suited the objectives of radical activists to overhaul existing bathroom policy. Therefore, City Council eliminated the second part of the ordinance completely, including its bathroom and shower exemptions.

They moved “sex” to the first part and added the new classifications. So, the new language is just this:

“It shall be unlawful to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”

“This is a boneheaded blunder and a further embarrassment to Charlotte.”

If “gender identity” and “gender expression” mean that a transgender must be allowed to use the bathroom and shower of choice, then “sex” means that ALL men must be permitted to use women’s facilities and vice versa. The City Attorney says that’s not what was intended, but it is what the language says.

This is a boneheaded blunder and a further embarrassment to Charlotte.

If you live in Charlotte, please ask your City Council representatives what they were thinking. If you don’t live in our city, be vigilant that your own city council does not create a national media circus for your hometown.”

https://www.votedanbishop.com/news/2016/02/24/blunder-new-charlotte-ordinance-prohibits-all-sex-specific-bathrooms-and-showers-inside-of-city-limits-000041?AID=7979

Dan Bishop letter to Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts on February 1, 2016.

https://www.votedanbishop.com/uploads/content/dan-bishop-letter.pdf

NC House Bill 2.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf

From NC Governor Pat McCrory March 25, 2016.

“Myths vs Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren’t saying about common-sense privacy law.”

“1. Does the new bill limit or prohibit private sector companies from adopting their own nondiscrimination policies or practices?

  • Answer: No. Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies.

2. Does this bill take away existing protections for individuals in North Carolina?

  • Answer: No. In fact, for the first time in state history, this law establishes a statewide anti-discrimination policy in North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s. This also means that the law in North Carolina is not different when you go city to city. 

3. Can businesses and private facilities still offer reasonable accommodations for transgender people, like single occupancy bathrooms for instance?

  • Answer: Yes. This bill allows and does nothing to prevent businesses, and public or private facilities from providing single-use bathrooms. 

4. Can private businesses, if they choose, continue to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom, locker room or other facilities of the gender they identify with, or provide other accommodations? 

  • Answer: Yes. That is the prerogative of private businesses under this new law. For instance, if a privately-owned sporting facility wants to allow attendees of sporting events to use the restroom of their choice, or install unisex bathrooms, they can. The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.

5. Does this law prohibit towns, cities or counties in North Carolina from setting their own nondiscrimination policies in employment that go beyond state law?

  • Answer: No. Town, cities and counties in North Carolina are still allowed to set stricter non-discrimination policies for their own employees if they choose.

6. Does this bill mean transgender people will always have to use the restroom of the sex of their birth, even if they have undergone a sex change? 

  • Answer: No. This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate.

7. I’m worried about how this new law affects transgender children or students in North Carolina. Does this bill allow bullying against transgender children in schools?

  • Answer: Absolutely not. North Carolina law specifically prohibits bullying and harassing behavior against children on the basis of sexual identity. 

8. Does this bill affect people with disabilities?

  • Answer: No. Statewide law also bans discrimination based on disability.

9. Why did North Carolina pass this law in the first place?

  • Answer: The bill was passed after the Charlotte City Council voted to impose a regulation requiring businesses to allow a man into a women’s restroom, shower, or locker room if they choose. This ordinance would have eliminated the basic expectations of privacy people have when using the rest room by allowing people to use the restroom of their choice. This new local regulation brought up serious privacy concerns by parents, businesses and others across the state, as well as safety concerns that this new local rule could be used by people who would take advantage of this to do harm to others.

In fact, the Charlotte City Council tried to pass this ordinance before but failed, and passed the same ordinance in February of 2016 despite serious concerns from state officials, business leaders and other concerned citizens.

10. What about parents or caregivers bringing children into the restroom?

  • Answer: The law provides exceptions to young children accompanied by parents or care givers.

11. Will this bill threaten federal funding for public schools under Title IX?

  • Answer: No, according to a federal court which has looked at a similar issue.

12. Will this bill prevent people from receiving medical attention in an emergency?

  • Answer: Absolutely not. Nothing will prevent people from receiving medical attention in public or private accommodations. 

13. Will this bill affect North Carolina’s ability to create or recruit jobs?

  • Answer: This bill does not affect companies in North Carolina. North Carolina was one of the top states to do business in the country before this law was passed, and preventing Charlotte’s bathroom ordinance from going into effect on April 1 won’t change that.

14. Why is the state telling cities and towns what it can and can’t do by repealing an ordinance the elected members of the Charlotte City Council passed?

  • Answer: North Carolina is one of at least 37 states like Virginia where cities and towns cannot pass rules or regulations that exceed the authority given to them by the state. In passing the bathroom ordinance, Charlotte was exceeding its authority and setting rules that had ramifications beyond the City of Charlotte. The legislature acted to address privacy and safety concerns if this ordinance was allowed to go into effect on April 1. 

15. Do any other regulations in North Carolina cities, towns or counties come close to what Charlotte was recommending?

  • Answer: No. Not that we are aware of. Therefore, nothing changes in North Carolina cities, towns and counties, including in Charlotte, regarding discrimination practices and protections now that this law has passed.

16. Did only Republicans vote for this bill?

  • Answer: No. 11 Democrats voted for this bill in the N.C. House of Representatives and no Democratic Senators voted against it. In fact, Democratic Senators walked out to avoid voting on the issue at all because many were going to vote for it and they did not want show their division. 

17. Why did the Legislature call a special session to overturn the bathroom ordinance?

  • Answer: The new Charlotte ordinance, which would have required all businesses to change their restroom policies and take away the expectation of privacy people have when using the restroom, was going to go into effect on April 1 if no action was taken.

18. Is North Carolina at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting jobs because it does not have ordinances like the one Charlotte was proposing? 

  • Answer: No. In fact in the last 3 years without an ordinance like this, North Carolina has created the 6th most jobs in the country – over 260,000 net new jobs. We know of no examples of companies being recruited to North Carolina that have asked if the state has an ordinance like the one Charlotte was proposing.”

http://governor.nc.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-post-and-other-media-outlets-arent-0

NC Laws are based on facts such as biological science, not feelings.

How do you rule in a court of law on someone’s feelings, i.e., that they associate with another sex type?

Common sense and grounded legal principals expose the Charlotte ordinance as foolhardy and impractical.

Now to my warnings to Jennifer Roberts, Roy Cooper, Bruce Springsteen, PayPal and other entities  threatening the NC economy and business.

Two can play that game.

I will do my best to see that Roy Cooper is not elected governor.

Jennifer Roberts, you are history.

Bruce Springsteen, PayPal, et al, you can be boycotted too and I intend to do so and encourage others to do likewise.

 

 

 

Stupid Charlotte transgender bathroom ordinance overturned by NC legislature and governor, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory signs bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules

Stupid Charlotte transgender bathroom ordinance overturned by NC legislature and governor, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory signs bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules

“Republicans and their allies have said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man — perhaps a sex offender — could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.”…Greensboro News Record March 24, 2016

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

Thank God the Democrats are not running NC.

When I heard about Charlotte passing an ordinance to allow anyone, despite their biological sex organs, to use the public bathroom of their choice, I was obviously concerned about the safety of children and other citizens and the lack of good judgement of the government of the largest city in North Carolina.

From the Greensboro New Record March 24, 2016.

“McCrory signs bill that reins in local governments, transgender rule”

“North Carolina legislators decided to rein in local governments by approving a bill that prevents cities and counties from passing their own anti-discrimination rules. Gov. Pat McCrory later signed the legislation, which dealt a blow to the LGBT movement after success with protections in cities across the country.

The Republican-controlled General Assembly took action Wednesday after Charlotte city leaders last month approved a broad anti-discrimination measure. Critics focused on language in the ordinance that allowed transgender people to use the restroom aligned with their gender identity.

McCrory, who was the mayor of Charlotte for 14 years and had criticized the local ordinance, signed the legislation Wednesday night that he said was “passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and etiquette.”

Although 12 House Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for the bill in the afternoon, later all Senate Democrats in attendance walked off their chamber floor during the debate in protest. Remaining Senate Republicans gave the legislation unanimous approval.

“We choose not to participate in this farce,” Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue of Raleigh said after he left the chamber.

Senate leader Phil Berger of Eden said the Democrats’ decision to leave was a “serious breach of their obligation to the citizens that voted to elect them.”

Republicans and their allies have said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children from “radical” action by Charlotte. There have been arguments that any man — perhaps a sex offender — could enter a woman’s restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.

“It’s common sense — biological men should not me be in women’s showers, locker rooms and bathrooms,” said GOP Rep. Dean Arp of Monroe before the chamber voted 82-26 for the legislation after nearly three hours of debate.

Gay rights leaders and transgender people said the legislation demonizes the community and espouses bogus claims about increasing the risk of sexual assaults. They say the law will deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people essential protections needed to ensure they can get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.”

Read more:

http://www.greensboro.com/news/mccrory-signs-bill-that-reins-in-local-governments-transgender-rule/article_830dcc07-75a2-519c-a15c-3ea204b08429.html

 

Bishop E.W. Jackson Christians leave Democrat Party, Manipulated deceived and misled black community for a long time, Democrats only care about staying in power

Bishop E.W. Jackson Christians leave Democrat Party, Manipulated deceived and misled black community for a long time, Democrats only care about staying in power

After  breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”…Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”…Barack Obama

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

God bless Bishop E.W. Jackson.

From NE News Now.

“Calling on Christians to leave Democratic Party”

“A prominent black pastor, upset over the direction the Democrat Party has taken, is asking Christians to change political affiliations.

Bishop E.W. Jackson of S.T.A.N.D. (Staying True To America’s National Destiny) has launched a project called “Exodus Now,” which calls for a “mass exodus of Christians from the Democrat Part.”

“We believe that the Democrat Party has shown itself to be anti-Christian, anti-Bible, anti-family, anti-life and anti-God, and it’s time for Christians to come out,” Jackson explains. “We are focusing particularly — not exclusively, but particularly — on black Christians who in our view have been held captive by the Democrat Party with a tissue of lies.”

While S.T.A.N.D. is encouraging people to vote their conscience, the group’s founder asserts, “We have stayed away from either endorsing Mitt Romney or saying that this is a call to vote against President Obama and make it personal. But I will say this,” Jackson adds. “We’re calling people to come out of the Democrat Party and not support candidates who represent its values and the rebellion that it represents against God. That certainly would include President Barack Obama.”

Bishop Jackson notes that the Democrat Party has “manipulated, deceived and misled the black community” for a long time, and it’s time “to awaken them that they are being used in a power game by Democrats who could care less about the black community, only care about staying in power, and they will use the black community for as long as they will allow them to use them.””

http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2012/09/24/calling-on-christians-to-leave-democratic-party

I have been saying this for years. The Democrats have been using blacks and others to stay in power. Barack Obama is the poster child for this bad behaviour.

From Citizen Wells, October 8, 2008 – Catholic Bishops report, 1997, ACORN corruption

“To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.”

“This commentary does not oppose CHD funding of genuine, grassroots community organizations, run and supported by individual members of a parish or diocese. There is potential value and virtue in the collective voice. However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”

Citizen Wells article

I attended a high school class reunion recently and one of the classmates I spoke with attends a large Baptist Church. He assured me that the majority of folks there were not Obama supporters. I said to him “I don’t see how anyone professing to be Christian can support Obama.”

From the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, NC.

During the Civil War, mountain men in NC, who were either Union supporters or not concerned with the war were conscripted by NC Democrats and forced to fight. That is why to this day, many of them are Republicans. My great great grandfather carried a minnie ball in his leg the rest of his life. I wonder if that is why my grandfather and father were Republicans.

And, of course, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

NC Obama Democrat party God country and common sense, Charlotte sells soul to devil?, Democrats destroy jobs and economy boo God and Jerusalem

NC Obama Democrat party God country and common sense, Charlotte sells soul to devil?, Democrats destroy jobs and economy boo God and Jerusalem

“Guilford (Large NC County) appears on it’s way to a third consecutive year with annual jobless rates in double digits. Economists say that likely hasn’t happened since the Great Depression.”…Greensboro News Record December 2, 2011

“Most college students are in the peak of health. Hence, covering their health care is usually a pretty easy thing to do. A number of colleges—particularly small, private liberal-arts institutions—offer their students what are called “limited-benefit” plans, which cover health expenses up to a defined cap, such as $10,000. Because expenses are capped, these plans are extremely inexpensive, with premiums ranging from $150-500 per year.

However, Obamacare prohibits capping insurance payouts, causing premiums to skyrocket. For 2013-2014, the law prohibits caps below $500,000 per year; after 2014, caps are banned entirely.”…Forbes June 5, 2012

“We tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.”…Barack Obama

My ancestral roots go back to the early 1700’s in NC and though my recent ones do not include participation in the NC Democrat Party, the old conservative Democrat Party of NC, which did not shun God, country and common sense, would have been easier to embrace.

This is not your father’s Democrat Party!

For example.

You have heard Barack and Michelle Obama and other democrats lie about job creation, inheriting a mess and blame George Bush.

The Democrats took control of both houses of congress in January 2007 and Obama took control of the White House in January 2009. A perfect storm of incompetence.

From the 2012 Democrat Platform.

“When President Obama took office, the economy was in the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. His Recovery Act represented the largest education investment since President Johnson, the largest infrastructure investment since President Eisenhower, the single largest clean energy investment ever, and the broadest tax cut in American history. It helped keep teachers, police officers, nurses, and firefighters on the job. It ensured that as we re-built our country, we bought American-made iron, steel, and manufactured goods wherever feasible, consistent with our international obligations. It helped the President stop the bleeding and reverse the free fall.”

“We’ve come a long way since 2008. The President took office in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; that month 800,000 Americans lost their jobs – more than in any single month in the previous 60 years. On Day One, he took immediate action to stop the free fall and put Americans back to work. In the midst of the crisis, President Obama knew what Democrats have always known: that American workers are tougher than tough times. Since early 2010, the private sector has created 4.5 million jobs, and American manufacturing is growing for the first time since the 1990s.”

Let’s examine for a moment a microcosm economy, Greensboro, NC, the third largest city in NC, the home of UNCG, where Michelle Obama recently bragged about jobs and what they had done for college students.

In January 2007, when the Democrats took control of congress, the unemployment rate was 4.6 to 5.2 percent (looks like somebody has been “tweaking” the numbers).

In December 2008, after 2 years of Democrat control, the rate was 8.2 percent. In January 2009, when Obama entered the White House, the rate was 9.6 percent. Did the rate jump actually jump 1.4 percent in one month (to maybe help Obama)? Since the Democrats were in control anyway, who cares.

The rate for July is listed at 10.2 percent.

So, with the efforts of the Democrats beginning in January 2007 and Obama working with them beginning in January 2009, the unemployment rate went from 4.8 – 5.2 percent to 10.2 percent.

That is certainly change!

From the 2012 Democrat Platform.

“These values are why we enacted historic health care reform that provides economic security for families and enacted sweeping financial reform legislation that will prevent the recklessness that cost so many their jobs, homes, and savings.”

“They’re why we helped American families who are working multiple jobs and struggling to pay the bills save a little extra money through tax cuts, lower health care costs, and affordable student loans.”

“We’ve already made historic progress. States have more flexibility to raise standards and reform schools, more students are receiving grants and scholarships, and young adults can stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as they finish their education and enter the workforce.”

From Citizen Wells September 4, 2012.

“I just spoke with a young man a few minutes ago who attends Greensboro College, a private college in NC. He mentioned that his health care costs had just almost doubled. Recently, reported here, was a report that the UNC system, NC public colleges, had almost doubled the health care costs for students and the reason was provisions in Obamacare.”

“Health Insurance Costs Skyrocket For College Students Due To ObamaCare”

“Can we stop calling ObamaCare the Affordable Care Act now?

A Young America’s Foundation activist forwarded an email from the Vice President for Finance at his school, Guilford College (Greensboro, NC), informing him that, “For the 2012-13 academic year, the annual cost of the student health insurance is increasing from $668 to $1,179. This insurance premium has been charged to your student account.”

Why the increase? “Our student health insurance policy premium has been substantially increased due to changes required by federal regulations issued on March 16, 2012 under the Affordable Care Act.”

“Student healthcare choice has been replaced with expensive ObamaCare mandates.”

“Registration cancellations rising at UNCG, A&T”

“UNCG about two weeks ago canceled the registrations of about 1,300 students because they had yet to pay their tuition bills — the highest number of cancellations since fall 2009, university officials said.””

“Amid chants of protest from about 100 students, the UNC Board of Governors this morning approved President Tom Ross’ proposal for tuition and
fee hikes over the next two years.”

“The cost of health insurance will climb from a range of $61 to $77 monthly to a range of $118 to $133 monthly, according to a memo sent from UNC President Tom Ross to the UNC Board of Governors. On an annual basis, most students will pay about $500 to $700 more in 2012-13, depending on the campus.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/dnc-convention-september-4-2012-obama-cares-with-obamacare-obamacare-doubles-nc-college-student-health-care-in-2012-lies-lies-more-obama-lies/

It gets worse folks.

From Forbes June 5, 2012.

“Obamacare Increases Costs of College Health Plans by as Much as 1,112%”

“Last March, I wrote a detailed pieceon why Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for young people. Yesterday, Louise Radnofsky of theWall Street Journal reported that some colleges are dropping their student health plans for the new academic year, because the new law increases the cost of those plans by as much as 1,112 percent. And no, that’s not a typo.

Most college students are in the peak of health. Hence, covering their health care is usually a pretty easy thing to do. A number of colleges—particularly small, private liberal-arts institutions—offer their students what are called “limited-benefit” plans, which cover health expenses up to a defined cap, such as $10,000. Because expenses are capped, these plans are extremely inexpensive, with premiums ranging from $150-500 per year.

However, Obamacare prohibits capping insurance payouts, causing premiums to skyrocket. For 2013-2014, the law prohibits caps below $500,000 per year; after 2014, caps are banned entirely.”

“Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C. paid $245 per student per year for 2011-2012. Next year, they’ll have to pay $2,507 to meet the law’s requirements.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/05/obamacare-increases-costs-of-college-health-plans-by-as-much-as-1112/

The folks in Charlotte have been celebrating the success of the convention.

There are a lot of good people there. I hope that they have retained enough religious convictions and common sense to not be blinded by the light. The false light. And not to sell their souls to the devil….again.

Obama speech in Charlotte, NC September 6, 2012, Blagojevich appeal delayed like arrest in 2008, Tony Rezko behind bars, Obama Rezko pay to play politics not forgotten

Obama speech in Charlotte, NC September 6, 2012, Blagojevich appeal delayed like arrest in 2008, Tony Rezko behind bars, Obama Rezko pay to play politics not forgotten

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

“Why did the Rezkos pay asking price for the lot adjacent to the Obama mansion, a lot which was subsequently valued 20 percent less?…Citizen Wells

“Why did Mutual Bank fire whistleblower Kenneth J Connor after he challenged the appraisal on the land purchased by Rita Rezko, just prior to the land sale to Obama?”…Citizen Wells

Before presenting the facts about the Obama Rezko lot purchase, I am waiting on clarification from a participant in this transaction. But since Barack Obama is speaking in my home state tonight in Charlotte, confidant once again that Rod Blagojevich is out of the limelight with his appeal delayed, just like his arrest was delayed in 2008, and Tony Rezko is behind bars, I just want to let Obama know that his ties to Rezko and Chicago pay to play politics are not forgotten.

Here is a good article from WND dated April 20, 2011.

“HOW CONVICTED FELON HELPED OBAMA BUY HOME”

“In the 2008 presidential campaign, now-convicted felon Tony Rezko’s role in helping Barack and Michelle Obama purchase their dream home at 5046 S. Greenwood Ave. in Chicago’s Hyde Park area created a scandal that threatened to derail Obama’s presidential hopes.

As the elements of the scandal emerged, Obama went into overdrive, holding extensive interview meetings with the staffs of Chicago’s two major newspapers, with his supporters rebutting and attacking critics and justifying Obama’s decisions.

The deal

Here are the key points in how Obama wanted to represent the home purchase once the criticism began:

  • When a prestige house across the street from Tony Rezko’s came on the market at 5046 S. Greenwood, Rezko must have thought it was just perfect for Barack and Michelle Obama and their two daughters. Rezko found the house for Obama. Salon.com reported that Donna Schwan of MetroPro Realty, the real estate agent who listed the property, recalled that the deal started when Rezko expressed interest in the listing,according to the Chicago Tribune.
  • The house was evidently perfect, a 96-year-old, multi-story, 6,400-square-foot, brick Georgian Revival home with four fireplaces, six bedrooms, six bathrooms, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a wine cellar large enough to store 1,000 bottles, the Tribune reported. The house was situated on a large double corner lot, with the vacant lot adjoining the home at the street corner. With a foot-tall concrete barrier and a wrought iron fence surrounding the property, there was no access to the vacant lot, except through Obama’s driveway.The neighborhood was in Kenwood, a South Side oasis of pricey homes attractive to the University of Chicago professors who liked to live close to work. The property would be a nice step-up for the Obama family seeking to move from the small Hyde Park condo the couple bought in 1993 for $277,500, where they lived in the eight years Obama was state senator, to a prestige home suitable for the family of a U.S. senator, the Boston Globe reported.The problem was that the doctor and his wife who owned the property, Fredrick E. Wondisford and Sally R. Radovick, wanted to sell the vacant lot and the house at the same time, even though the two properties were separately listed. Also, while the sellers wanted to find a buyer as quickly as possible, they did not want to close the deal until June 2005.
  • The list price just for the home was $1.95 million, outside the reach of the Obama family, even with Obama’s re-issued 1995 autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” hitting bestseller lists, his U.S. Senate salary of $157,082, and Michelle’s 2005 income of $317,000 at the University of Chicago Hospitals, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
  • Rezko came up with a solution. His wife Rita bought the vacant lot at the full asking price, permitting Obama and Michelle to negotiate buying the house for $1.65 million, a discount of $300,000 from the asking price.
  • Rita Rezko closed on the vacant lot the same day the Obamas closed on the house, paying $625,000 for the vacant lot.

“Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules baring the granting or asking of favors,”wrote John Fund in the Wall Street Journal.

The Boston Globe reported Obama asked Rezko’s advice in negotiating the deal – after all, Rezko was supposedly experienced with real estate, having negotiated so many low-income housing deals in Chicago – and Obama toured the house with Rezko before making an offer.

The Boston Globe also reported real estate agent Schwan’s recollection that the Obamas may not have made the highest bid, but the willingness of the Obamas and Rita Rezko to close in June was decisive.

This detail shows the importance of Rezko to the ability of the Obamas to buy their dream house. Had Rita Rezko not been willing to buy the vacant lot in June, “the deal was off.”

Obamas buy slice of vacant lot

After the Obamas moved in, the senator and his wife decided they wanted to buy a slice of the vacant lot.

The Boston Globe reported an independent appraisal of the entire vacant lot parcel was worth about $500,000, about $125,000 less than Rita had paid for it. The Obamas wanted to buy one-sixth of the vacant lot, to create a yard next to the house.

The appraisal said the strip Obama wanted to buy was worth only $40,500, because it was not suitable for building. Still, in January 2006, the Obamas paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for the one-sixth strip, a proportionate share of what Rita had paid for the entire vacant lot. Rita built a fence to separate out the rest of the vacant lot, and the deal was closed.

Obama hired an attorney and architect to design a wrought iron fence on the new property line, including the one-sixth of the vacant lot bought from Rita. Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 cost of building the fence, and Obama agreed to pay his landscaper to mow Rita’s vacant lot for her, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Enter Michael J. Sreenan

Then, when Tony Rezko was indicted, Rita Rezko sold the vacant lot, evidently needing the funds.

The Chicago Tribune reported land records in the Cook County Recorder of Deeds database showed Rita sold the “garden lot” on Dec. 28, 2006, to a company owned by former Rezko business attorney Michael J. Sreenan that planned to develop housing on the lot.

Rita sold the remaining five-sixths of the vacant lot for $575,000, netting an estimated $54,500 from the sale. A spokesman for Obama said the senator was aware development was planned on the lot but denied he knew any of the details.

Following the sale of the lot, the blog Rezko Watch reported that following Obama’s marathon sessions with the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune on March 14, 2008, Obama released a new list of Rezko-related campaign contributors whose money had been released to charity.

On the list was a $2,000 donation Michael Sreenan made to Obama on June 30, 2003.

Then Politico.com reported Sreenan made five other contributions totaling $3,500 to Obama on the same days other Rezko associates and employees contributed often matching sums.

Sreenan’s first contribution on record was a $1,000 check reported on the same March 2000 day that five other Rezko employees contributed a like sum. Evidently, Obama donated all these Rezko contributions to charity.

Then, in an article entitled “Obama is one lucky fellow,” Rezko Watch reported the Obamas had little to fear that Sreenan would actually construct any condos on the lot Sreenan bought from Rita Rezko.

According to Rezko Watch, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle has rejected plans from a prospective buyer who wanted to build a single-family home on the lot adjoining the Obama home, as well as a developer’s plans to put condos up there.

Preckwinkle declared that any home built on that land would have to be compatible with the neighborhood’s mansions.

Preckwinkle, Rezko Watch noted, is not only the Democratic Committeeman of the 4th Ward, but she is a known Obama supporter. The Chicago Sun-Times has reported Rezko was conveniently the long-time head of Preckwinkle’s campaign-finance committee. Six of Rezko’s problem housing projects are in Preckwinkle’s 4th Ward.

A ‘bonehead’ deal

After a year of taking heat in the local Chicago media over the Rezko scandal, Obama finally decided to face the music, coming into the offices of the Chicago Sun-Times on March 14, 2008, and the offices of the Chicago Tribune the same day, to give a lengthy opening statement and answer questions from the newspapers’ editorial staff and investigative reporters.

The Sun-Times bluntly asked Obama, “Why didn’t alarm bells go off when you agreed to buy a 10-foot-wide strip of property to buffer your home at the same time reports were coming out that [Rezko] was being investigated for alleged illegal influence-peddling?”

Obama answered, “Probably because I had known him for a long time, and he had acted in an above-board manner with me, and I considered him a friend. In retrospect it should have, so this was a mistake on my part.”

The newspaper pressed, reminding Obama that he had spoken a lot about judgment in his presidential campaign, asking if the decision to purchase the 10-foot-wide strip from Rezko was a judgment issue.

Obama repeated that the decision was a mistake, adding for emphasis, “I said it was a bonehead move. I think it is further evidence I am not perfect.” The comment “bonehead move” stuck and was repeated widely in the media after the interview.

In his prepared statement, Obama told the Sun-Times that Michelle fell in love with the house. The next day, in his prepared statement to the Tribune, Obama explained, “Michelle calls me and says, “I’m in, I love this house, but it’s more than we were talking about paying for, but I really think it’s a great house, you should go take a look at it.”

When the Tribune grilled Obama about whether he and Rezko had coordinated their bids so Obama could afford to buy the home at a discounted price, Obama admitted he and Rezko had toured the home together before making offers.

Obama denies wrongdoing

Obama told the Tribune he had a written statement from the sellers, saying “at no time did they ever consider the lot in relation to the price of the house, that they did not offer a discount on the house, that there was no contingency with respect to our house purchase relative to the lot.”

The transcript of the question-and-answer session clearly shows the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama. Yet, Obama persisted, denying he coordinated the purchase with Rezko.

Obama insisted he believed Rezko bought the vacant lot because Rezko thought it was a good business decision to develop it.

Obama could offer no explanation of why Rita Rezko bought the vacant lot, instead of her husband, and he complained that the sellers were private people who objected to reporters intruding into their lives with hostile questions.

The Tribune asked directly, “The issue of judgment is one of the keystones of your campaign right now. How should Americans look at this series of events that you’ve just laid out?”

Obama answered, “I think that the way they should view it is that I made a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest or appearances of impropriety.”

Still, he insisted, “They should see somebody who was not engaged in any wrongdoing, who did not in any way betray the public trust, who has maintained consistently high ethical standards and who they can trust.”

In his account of the interview, Tribune reporter David Jackson noted that the question-and-answer session was the first time Obama disclosed he and Rezko had toured the Kenwood home together.

“In his first accounts of the purchase, Obama did not divulge that tour,” Jackson wrote. “He said Friday that he simply didn’t feel the information was salient and insisted the tour didn’t mean he and Rezko coordinated their purchases.”

“Obama: I trusted Rezko,” was the way Jackson’s story was titled.”

http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289529/