ME student’s class project draws Westboro’s hate

December 31st, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives No Responses

from Village Soup:

“SEARSPORT, Maine — Searsport District High School senior Zach Parker may have got more than he bargained for when he decided he didn’t want the topic of his government class project to be boring.

More precisely, Parker knew he didn’t want to tackle what he saw as overdone themes — he gave “poverty” and “welfare” as two examples — so he hit the Internet looking for an offbeat topic and came upon some headlines about the Westboro Baptist Church, a rabidly anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-government church in Topeka, Kan. that has made a name for itself by picketing thousands of events around the country every year.

The group sounded familiar, and as Parker did more searching, he found that WBC had protested at military funerals. He thought of his own uncle in the National Guard, who he said could be deployed overseas next year, and the thought of him being killed in combat was hard to reconcile. The idea of people protesting the funeral was unthinkable.

Part of Parker’s school assignment was to get the word out. He had always wanted to write a bill, but Maine already had a law on the books addressing protests at military funerals, so he took his argument to the federal government, pitching the bill to Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Michael Michaud, both of whom, Parker said, have expressed interest.

His goal, Parker said, is to “put a barricade” between protesters and military funerals.” (read full article)

OK Stop Here. Lets discuss this.

In 2008, when I started paying more attention to government, and how faith plays a role in one’s political views, I would have thought this would have been a good thing. Now, in 2011, I have my doubts. Having seen a large spectrum of political views and what is and is not acceptable in some conservative’s eyes, the question begs- “is this the price of freedom?”. When the smoking ban occurred in our state, there were a LOT of conservatives that cheered that ban, citing their personal reasons for supporting the ban. Personally, I love the idea of smoke free restaurants. However, my personal desire not to be around smoke cannot override a property owner’s right to do what he or she wishes, with their own property. WHY is it ok to regulate what we find ok according to our personal desires, but fight like we were fighting Satan against things we do not believe in personally, such as … ooohhh cap and trade? This is where the rubber met the road in my soul as it pertained to property rights and the smoking ban. I have no “right” to dine smoke free. I do have a right to choose where I spend my money. I can control what is indeed in my control, and take personal responsibility.

So what about Westboro “Baptist” Church? Well for one, they “ain’t” Baptist. Lets get that out there. They’re something, but Baptist, they are not. We can ALL agree these people act like the scum of the earth. However, there is a long, long, long line of liberals in this country who believe that we, the TEA Party activists are scum of the earth, too. It wasn’t long ago when our very own Secretary of Homeland Security released a report titled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.“-

“Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks. *

If you remember, the only push back, was truly done in defense of Veterans. The rest of that statement includes a lot of us. SO. Is it ok to silence … this website? Because we talk about state’s rights in our personal conversations? Is it ok to prohibit abortion protests because .. well, it is deemed “extreme” or “hate filled”? Where does it stop?

I believe, it stops when we start regulating ourselves as a country. This teen, while with the most honest of intentions, needs to stop thinking about the government solving our problems. This is the same issue with the smoking ban. People do not like to be around smoke, so they want the government to regulate smoking in public. Forget property rights and free market capitalism. This teen’s answer to the Westboro bunch is to make it illegal for them to do what they do. He’s forgetting that, as much as we DISAGREE with what they say, they have just as much a right to stand in a public right of way and “protest” as we do to stand in a public right of way at an abortion clinic and hold signs that pro choicers could easily say is “hate filled” by their own reasoning and definitions. So if we say it is ok for the Westboro bunch to be regulated out of their protests, are we going to say it is ok for abortion protestors to be regulated out of their protests, as well? One group is no more legal to be in this country as the other.

If he wants a “barricade”, I would suggest he consider forming an “Anti Westboro” group that does the same thing that our awesome conservatives in North Carolina did with the Elizabeth Edward’s funeral:

“Just because I disagree with someone, does not make them my enemy, just my opponent in life. We will not stand by and allow these monsters to disrespect Ms Edwards life or her family. Randy’s Right, NC freedom and Triangle Conservatives Unite will be there in numbers with American Flags for only one purpose. To prevent Westboro Baptist Church radicals from disrupting funeral services or harassing the Edwards family. We must make sure that the Westboro Baptist Church membership understands they’re not welcome in our state.

It is sad we have to do this during a funeral, but for evil to reign is when good women and men remain silent.

Please only bring American flags. Our groups will remain silent and please no shouting, even if provoked by the members of Westboro Baptist Church.”

Maybe as it pertains to Westboro “Baptist”, others should take the lead from the Triangle Conservatives, and not allow their evil to spread for the presence of good in their midst. Only then, will God’s love be shown to all involved in those funerals, which is what they need. Love. Not Hate.


Find me on Facebook and Twitter

Net Neutrality: More Government in YOUR HOME.

December 28th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives No Responses
Net Neutrality: More Government in YOUR HOME.

Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?

The FCC’s new “net neutrality” rules only muddle the picture.

By Jack ShaferPosted Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010, at 5:42 PM ET

Even the staunchest net neutrality advocate will concede that net neutrality is a fuzzy concept. No network can be purely neutral. If the current Internet didn’t prioritize some traffic at the expense of other traffic, the whole enterprise would grind to a halt like Manhattan’s streets when the stoplights stop working.

So the basic question here is who will set the Internet’s priorities, the government or the providers. That I have an innate distrust for government should surprise no regular readers. Traditionally, the state censors and marginalizes voices while private businesses tend to remain tolerant. Even at the height of the rebellions of the 1960s and early 1970s, political radicals and social radicals could always find printers to publish their most sordid, seditious, and sensational material. But that’s only because there was no FCC control over who could own and operate a printing press, no control over what prices they could charge for their services, and no state commandment that they had to accept any print job. The only times the FCC has spurred debate and commentary have been when it has stepped out of the way.

If the FCC is as keen about encouraging Internet innovation and entrepreneurship and forestalling censorship as its chairman claims to be, there is a smarter policy framework to pursue. First, the FCC should avoid cementing the current broadband monopolies and duopolies into place by encouraging new entrants. One way to encourage new land-based Internet providers would be to replace municipal- and state-franchise laws, which extract concessions and cash from cable systems and telephone companies for the right to string line, with a federal-franchise system that simplifies the process—and can’t shake the new entrants down or otherwise impede them.

On the wireless side, the FCC would be wiser to continue on the course it set a few years ago by easing the reallocation of spectrum originally given to television to mobile broadband. That earlier reallocation made possible the wireless Internet provider Clearwire, which is just rolling out in many places in the country. Additional spectrum deregulation would help create more competition. For instance, if TV stations want to exit the TV business and repurpose their spectrum to Internet service, the FCC should step off.

While I dread the hassles and unintended consequences of corporate control of the Internet, I dread the intended consequences of a controlling FCC much, much more.


Any government ruling that has liberals griping about too much corporate control and the Wall Street Journal growling about a left-wing coup might not be a bad compromise.

Considering that the Federal Communications Commission had few good options last week, its new rules affirming “Net neutrality” were at least a stab at fairness. This particular problem isn’t simple to say, much less to solve, but here it is in a nutshell:

Internet Marketing Company WebpageFXThe Internet has been called the “great equalizer.” A recent decision by the FCC does not change that, although consumers will have to prepare to pay more for faster speeds.
DAN GLEITER, The Patriot-News

As Netflix, Hulu, Skype and other bandwidth monsters become more common, Internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon want to charge them for the access. Their reasoning is that it costs the ISPs more — they have spent billions on bandwidth — so they should be able to recoup their investment.

The problem is that ISPs are biased. Video companies and Skype don’t simply use the Internet like your friend’s cooking blog; they are competitors. Netflix and Hulu sell access to movies and premium TV shows just like Comcast. Skype provides phone service just like Verizon. So consumer groups have demanded that ISPs treat all content the same.

Each side has demonized the other, but they are both right, and they are both wrong. Net neutrality boosters talk about the Internet as though it were a natural phenomenon like sunshine. How dare big bad corporations limit our access to what we have always enjoyed free and clear?

This misses the point. While the Internet belongs to no one, you need a connection to it, and those connections are not free. Comcast spent $12 billion in 2007 and 2008 alone upgrading its system to handle increased traffic.

Consumers pay more for a faster web connection, but why should we pay the entire cost? The ISPs want to make bandwidth gobblers such as Netflix pay some of the freight, too. At the same time, web geeks are absolutely correct that abandoning Net neutrality would have a chilling effect on free speech.

The problem isn’t Hulu or Netflix, which had revenues of $1.7 billion in 2009. Netflix hardly needs our sympathy. If Netflix and Comcast want to fight over their profit margins, the government should not be taking sides. The problem is that, without Net neutrality, an ISP could slap high charges on an indie or high school rock band trying to reach fans with its music videos.

The Internet is the great equalizer. It allows independent musicians and filmmakers direct access to their audience without going on their knees to some big corporation. It allows a grassroots political group a voice alongside the wealthiest lobbyists. That isn’t going to change. The commission reaffirmed the basic principle of Net neutrality. Verizon or Comcast cannot block, or even slow down, high bandwidth content such as streaming video. They have to treat all online content equally. Score one for us.

However, they can charge the bandwidth monsters more. In other words, the Internet is no longer a one-price-all-you-can-eat buffet for content providers. Like consumers, they can be charged more for faster speeds. This could be fine if it is applied to a content provider’s total usage. A Harrisburg indie band is hardly going to consume bandwidth by the terabyte.

More troubling, the FCC denied the principle of Net neutrality for mobile devices, allowing an ISP to block or slow streaming video to your smart phone, for example. It reasoned that mobile bandwidth is much tighter than online bandwidth.

That’s true, but it ignores the whole direction of the Internet and, indeed, of society. As one critic put it, the FCC did a great job of protecting access to the Internet of the 1990s, but not to the Internet of tomorrow. The only thing that the FCC did for certain last week was to set the stage for lawsuits that, ultimately, will flesh out exactly how the new rules can be applied.

Meanwhile, just when you thought you no longer needed to pay for HBO, get ready to pay more for that streaming movie. For all the talk about freedom of speech, much of this is a tussle among corporate behemoths — Comcast and Netflix, Verizon and Google — for profit share.

And one way or another, that often means the consumer pays the bill.

FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Spark Debate

Should the government regulate Internet access? Tuesday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided it should, by voting 3-2 in favor of establishing rules for Internet service providers. The guidelines aim to preserve unfiltered broadband access to all lawful Web sites and services, a term dubbed “Net Neutrality.” The specifics are unknown since they have not yet been made public, though the FCC did state wired ISPs would be more tightly regulated than wireless ISPs. Here’s what the staff of PCMag thought of the decision.

Dan Costa Thumbs up. To me, the rules seem pretty reasonable. Like any legal document, there is a lot to unpack. Indeed, defining what “reasonable discrimination” is, exactly, is perhaps the greatest point and the FCC punts on that a bit. The FCC leaves the door open to tiered pricing and bandwidth throttling, but makes it clear it has the authority to stand up for consumers if these rules are violated. These rules aren’t perfect, but I like the idea that none of the special interest groups are happy with it. That is because they were written in the public interest. —Dan Costa, Executive Editor

Will Fenton Thumbs up, with caveats. In sum, what passed through the FCC ought to encourage consumers. It forbids ISPs from blocking access to sites—sorry, Comcast—and requires providers to disclose how they manage networks—see, Comcast? Even so, what we have now may best be described as Net Neutrality lite: There are plenty of loopholes (e.g. the exemption for managed services), and wireless, the next frontier, is left largely untouched (e.g. mobile app stores remain a huge gray zone). The devil is, as they say, in the details. I’m interested to see how it’s executed and enforced, and whether it survives the inevitable legal and legislative challenges. On balance, however, I believe it’s a step in the right direction. —William Fenton, Junior Analyst for Software & Networking

PJ Jacobowitz Thumbs down. “We recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android.”—FCC Press Release on the Net Neutrality laws. They confused open, unfiltered Internet access with open-source operating systems; they are complete imbeciles. It’s intuitive to think the government should create laws that forbid ISPs from filtering Internet access, and it’s intuitive to think that would protect consumers. But that’s rarely the way it works. Instead, adding more regulation has a track record of adding cost, impeding innovation, and even giving select companies advantages in the market. I’d rather take my chances with no regulation and let the free market work—let the consumers pick winners and losers by allowing them to vote with their dollar. If they like what an ISP is doing, they will reward it with their business; if not, they’ll take their business elsewhere and hopefully the ISP will change its product to win back the consumers’ business. —PJ Jacobowitz, Analyst for Digital Cameras

Samara Lynn Thumbs up. Fine with the rules; the more lax attitude about mobile broadband is a head scratcher. —Samara Lynn, Networking and Business Analyst

Michael Muchmore Thumbs sideways. Fifteen years ago, you had a wide choice of ISPs to get you onto the Internet, including a host of local competitive providers. Now, since people understandably want broadband, it’s either the phone company or the cable company, and outside major metro areas, there’s little or no choice of either. So with two or three companies dominating Internet connectivity, I worry about the openness of the Internet giving way to another TV-like commercial offering that pushes out the little innovative guy who’s made the Internet so vibrant. I would like Internet access to be like electricity or phone service—you’re connected to the supply without restrictions. So I’m all for the FCC saying, “Cable and Telecom ISPs, you can’t pick and choose sites or Internet services to favor or throttle (or even block).” But the announced rules give ISPs too much of an inroad to traffic profiling, especially for mobile carriers. —Michael Muchmore, Lead Analyst for Software

Peter Pachal Thumbs up. It was time. While some might say the FCC’s outline of Net Neutrality was just common-sense stuff that essentially prohibits what networks and providers weren’t doing anyway, there’s just too much evidence—both confirmed and anecdotal—that activities like throttling access to specific sites or services have been happening to some degree. And the fact that anyone could possibly be charged $62,000 for downloading a movie that costs $9 at Amazon shows many systems are anything but transparent. The wireless exception is vaguely worrisome, but so is surging demand for wireless data, which shows no sign of being sated anytime soon. It seems reasonable to give wireless networks more wiggle room, at least until 4G is commonplace. —Peter Pachal, News Director

Neil Rubenking Thumbs sideways. The Internet wasn’t invented by today’s giant broadband providers. They can’t stake a claim and take ownership. On the other hand, if they can’t turn a profit they won’t continue to provide the infrastructure we all rely on. The FCC’s ruling seems to be a reasonable compromise that gives the providers market stability but bans high-handed practices like suppressing or throttling content from competitors. I’d be happier if they actively banned paid prioritization, though, and I fear that with some income opportunities now cut off the providers will look to raising their rates for those of us who use the most bandwidth. —Neil J. Rubenking, Lead Analyst for Security

Sascha Segan Thumbs down. The Web is going wireless, and “paid prioritization” is the new frontier for wireless company profits. While I’m encouraged that wireless companies will be forbidden from blocking lawful Web sites or voice services that compete with their own, I don’t see anything in there stopping them from throttling those services or restricting them to low speeds with poor quality of service. I agree that wireless carriers often need to manage their networks by restricting high-bandwidth uses so everyone can get some airspace, but I don’t trust them to stop there. Unless the FCC is vigilant, I worry that we’re going to have a wireless world where almost every use outside your carrier’s walled garden carries an extra fee if you want it to function properly—and that doesn’t sound much like a free and open Internet to me. —Sascha Segan, Lead Analyst for Mobile

Lance Ulanoff Thumbs sideways. It’s fascinating to watch both sides prostrate themselves over how far this order goes or does not go without actually having the details of the order in their hands. What we do know about the FCC’s rules paints them as largely ineffectual pablum that will only be tested when the first ISP tries to change the way it does business. It’s not strong- or far-reaching enough to truly address wireless and appears to do nothing to figure out how all these players might coexist in our handsets and homes. On the other hand, I see it as a necessary first step. I expect the order will be added to and adjusted numerous times over the next few years and, perhaps, will become some sort of wide-ranging, and more powerful act in the future. That of course is when the most libertarian among us should really become concerned. —Lance Ulanoff, Editor-in-Chief

Brian Westover Thumbs up (tentatively). To me, it’s a choice of poisons—corporations, whose actions tend toward self-interest, or government, which can’t seem to run or regulate anything particularly well. The problem is that it’s an inescapable issue. Decisions have to be made, guidelines established. The lesser of two evils, in this case, is limited government regulation. So long as these rules are clear, consistent, and keep the best interest of the general public in mind, I’ll support them. —Brian Westover, Junior Analyst for Hardware

Could Richard Burr Be A RINO?

December 22nd, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives 7 Responses
Could Richard Burr Be A RINO?

Folks we have had a slew of emails come in about how bad Richard Burr is, how they regret voting for him last month and sending facts about his voting record. We have done some preliminary research and so far things don’t look very promising for the Senator. Therefore we are going to make it a priority to watch this man like a hawk, and if he continues down this same path he will be at odds with the NC Tea Party, and with our numbers that is not good for any candidate.

After the New Year we will continue posting things about his actions in DC but in the meantime here is an “Open Letter To The Senator” by Peggy from NC Freedom:


I hope ALL of the groups who ran ads in support of Burr’s re-election are now happy: National Right to Life, Christian Coalition, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

When you support someone based on their party affiliation and how they answer a survey and not on their belief in their oath to the constitution or their voting record, this is what you get. Believe me he is laughing at you.

Lest you forget all the other votes he has had before and since TARP? Voted to reconfirm Bernake, reauthorize Head Start, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus I, S2248 Warrantless Searches, Farm Bill S2419.( Vetoed by Bush and he voted to OVERIDE, this might have been Bushes only veto in 8 years!) ( or yes by the way this bill authorizes the $50 Billion in payments to all the Black farmers for discrimination), Expanding Americore!, Supplemental Appropriations Bill 2009 ,Protect America Act(warrant less searches of the Internet), Foreign Aid, Worldwide Aids funding, Higher ed Aid for Pell etc.

How about the $50 million Government jobs vote this spring (one of 5 GOP who voted for that), the$7 trillion Prescription drug act,  supporting Ted Kennedys illegal’s amnesty amendment, reinstating the government funded stem cell research ( all of the pro life enthusiasts are loving that), co sponsor of S510!  I can go on, there is loads more.

And all of the pro war support and votes, and you are right, never served, kids won’t serve, but he is dictating what rules people in the military will have to live by. Is this really the best this state has to represent the good people of NC?  God rest his soul Jesse Helms would have NEVER crossed his constituents and lied like this guy. Remember all Burr’s ads that he was a fiscal conservative? Hah! Where and when did he NOT vote for big wasteful spending. You could send a twelve year old to DC to vote like that. By the way, Burr’s vote for repeal of DADT was not necessary for it to pass, so he did in in spite of the military.   I have been counting to ten all day, to control my words.  You can write all the letters you want to Burr but nothing will change what he does or will do, he has already been reelected for 6 years. You are stuck with him. Meanwhile, more great Americans will die and be maimed abroad in the name of “freedom” when right here in our own front yard our freedoms are threatened by the people you elect more than any foreign threat in comparison. Think about it.


Homeless Panhandlers must apply for a permit

December 22nd, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives 13 Responses
Homeless Panhandlers must apply for a permit

If you are homeless and you panhandle in the medians you must now go to city government to get a permit for panhandling. Permits usually require an address, so what do these folks do when an address is needed? Leave it to the dopes in City Hall to require the homeless to get a permit. And we pay these people to make these decisions? Good grief, full story here:

By Laura Graff

The Winston-Salem City Council has banned panhandling in roadway medians and voted to require people who beg anywhere else in the city to apply for a permit.

The decisions do not apply to people who sell newspapers or to charities.

Winston-Salem Police Chief Scott Cunningham said the ban on median panhandling, enacted Monday night by the council, is about safety and about quality of life for Winston-Salem drivers.

“People should not be in the roadway,” Cunningham said in an e-mail message. The council’s vote changed an existing city law that governed begging. Those changes, Cunningham said, were meant “to ensure that anyone that is panhandling does so safely and that the public can be relatively safe from being accosted by persons with criminal backgrounds.”

Sonjia Kurosky, executive director at Samaritan Ministries, which operates a soup kitchen and shelter for men at 1243 N. Patterson Ave., applauded the decision.

“Poverty is a tough question,” Kurosky said. “But I think the answers are not to just give strangers money.”

Panhandlers, Kurosky said, sometimes have unaddressed mental-health problems. She said some panhandlers use cash to buy alcohol or drugs.

“I would much rather see people go buy us some of those big No. 10 cans (of vegetables or fruit) and bring them to Samaritan than give money to those folks who are standing out there,” Kurosky said. “I wish they would ban panhandling altogether.”

But the homeless who beg in Winston-Salem’s roadways say the ban will increase crime and is an unnecessary move against a population that is already struggling.

On Tuesday afternoon, four homeless men and one homeless woman stood along Hanes Mall Boulevard, hoping for cash.

One of the men, Lewis Sanders, stood in the median near Home Depot and held a piece of cardboard printed in handwritten block letters:

“Homeless,” the sign read. “Anything helps. Thank you. God bless.”

A few of Sanders’ friends, also homeless, stood on a nearby median holding similar cardboard signs. Some drivers stopped and offered cash. One driver handed over a plastic bag containing toothpaste, socks and crackers.

Sanders and his friends call this type of begging “flying.” They work together, picking different areas of the city. At dusk, they meet and pool their resources. On Tuesday, when forecasters predicted temperatures would drop to 36 degrees, Sanders and his friends hoped to collect enough to pay for a hotel room.

Across Stratford Road, Howard Randolph stood holding his own cardboard sign. The hood on his thick canvas coat was pulled tight around his face.

A Ford pickup truck drove past Randolph, then a PT Cruiser, then a BMW. A man and a woman in a minivan pulled up. The woman rolled down her window and handed Randolph a paper bag and a $1 bill. The bag contained a bottle of water, some crackers and canned meat. A piece of blue paper, cut in the shape of a heart, was stuck to the outside: “God loves you and we do too.”

Randolph said he typically sleeps outside, in a tent in the woods. Sometimes, if he collects enough money, he gets a hotel room.

“I don’t mess with abandoned buildings,” Randolph said, shaking his head. “You get 120 days for that.”

Randolph has been homeless for years. His last listed address is the Bethesda Center for the Homeless on Patterson Avenue.

Panhandling on the streets, he said, gives him an income. He is upset that city leaders chose to tighten restrictions on panhandling in December.

“We’re getting hassled in the winter?” he said. “Unbelievable.”

City Attorney Angela Carmon said in an e-mail message that the city will likely delay enforcing the changes. City police and city revenue collectors, she said, need training before the changes can be enforced. That training will take at least 30 days.

Privilege licenses will be issued by the city revenue department; anyone convicted of two or more crimes involving assault, threats or illegally using a weapon would be denied a permit.

Greensboro has a similar law and charges $35 for a permit.

Winston-Salem permits are free, Carmon said.

Linda Price, who said she has been homeless “just a few months,” said she was not surprised by the city’s action.

“There’s nothing we can do about it,” she said.

Read it on the Journal website

Some Comments:

  1. Posted by justlookin on Dec. 22, 2010 – 12:19 p.m.

    charity: (char*i*ty) – 1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. 2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms.

    So to clarify the council’s decision… charity is forbidden in the streets, but charity is not.

  2. +1-0CLEAR
    Posted by tarheelns on Dec. 22, 2010 – 11:26 a.m.

    Thank Goodness! These folks and the ones begging for charities are a royal pain in the posterior. Add in the fact that a majority of them are ripping everyone off. Has the city ever considered that by letting them beg, even with a free permit, that Winston-Salem is breaking the law? Yes – because they are making $$$$ tax free and that is a federal offense. Get the charities off the medians as well.

  3. +0-0CLEAR
    Posted by Dimitri945 on Dec. 22, 2010 – 10:53 a.m.

    “The decisions do not apply to people who sell newspapers or to charities.”

    This law will be challenged and overturned for this reason.

    The government cannot play favorites regarding which businesses and citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. Why newspapers and not other businesses? Why charities and not a charitable donation to someone who claims to be homeless?

    It must be all or nothing.

  4. +4-0CLEAR
    Posted by citizenwane on Dec. 22, 2010 – 10:49 a.m.

    I’m glad they passed this ordinance, but there’s a disconnect in this story…

    The police chief says that people shouldn’t be in the roadways, yet this new ordinance applies only to the homeless panhandlers…it doesn’t apply to charity and newspaper beggars.

    If people shouldn’t be in the roadway, then people shouldn’t be in the roadway, be it the homeless, the newspaper hawkers, the charity beggars or the high school car wash beggars…

    The charity beggars are more bold and in your face than the homeless…they walk around in traffic shaking their buckets and trying to entice you with candy to roll down your window.

    Ban all beggars from working the street corners and intersections.

  5. +0-0CLEAR
    Posted by FlamingoGirl on Dec. 22, 2010 – 12:33 p.m.

    I’ve long wondered when begging on the streets became an acceptable form of “fundraising,” especially for student organizations. That just teaches children that the best way to get money is to beg for it, not work and earn it (like those of us who are expected to contribute to them). If it’s not safe for the homeless, then it surely isn’t safe for students/children. And some of the newspaper vendors are very aggressive. There’s one man at the 5 Points intersection who walks among the cars and comes right up to drivers’ windows, which probably makes many people uncomfortable.

  6. +1-0CLEAR
    Posted by nightingale on Dec. 22, 2010 – 11:44 a.m.

    “Charity” beggers are very aggressive, and they do come out in the traffic, posing a safety concern. I question their “charity”. As for those selling newspapers, they should also be banned. I saw one “working” three lanes of traffic at the Silas Creek/Peters Creek intersection, dodging between moving cars.

    Council needs to rethink and ban them all.

  7. +1-0CLEAR
    Posted by missellieg on Dec. 22, 2010 – 10:33 a.m.

    I agree with some of the other posters here that no one should be allowed in the medians, it is dangerous. The only exception to that rule might be the guys selling newspapers, they are providing a legitimate service and I have never seen one of these guys intoxicated or acting unruly.

    I am concerned that the panhandlers will just move into the parking lots around the intersections, Sam’s, Lowes Hardware, Home Depot, etc. I am sure that the major businesses have rules against panhandling but the smaller businesses might have trouble with this. Just for instance, say a guy can’t stand at the intersection of Hanes Mall Blvd and Silas Creek any more, what is to keep him from panhandling in the parking lot at Silas Creek Crossing.

    I have been approached in a Lowes Foods parking lot, in the Harris Teeter parking lot at Miller Street and in a Wachovia Bank parking lot, just in the last month. Won’t this get worse?

    I just wanted to add, I don’t pretend to have the answers about how to help out the homeless, but I tend to agree that handing out cash is not the answer. I would think that donating blankets, food, clothing, even a key to a hotel room for one night, to a Homeless Shelter has got to be more helpful to those people who are truly homeless.

The NC Fairtax

December 22nd, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives 2 Responses
The NC Fairtax

The FairTax is a proposal laid out in The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) that would replace all federal income taxes with a single national retail sales tax.  The tax would be levied on all new goods and services for personal consumption at the point of sale. The rate would be set at 23%. You can see their website here.

Dream Act and DADT votes are today

December 18th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives One Response
Dream Act and DADT votes are today

The Senate will act on two important pieces of President Obama’s progressive legislative agenda today: the DREAM Act and the repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay servicemembers. By the end of the day, the path to final passage is expected to be set for DADT repeal, while DREAM is expected to languish for another Congress to pass.

Starting at around 10:30 this morning, the Senate will take up a cloture vote on DREAM. Cloture — voted in by a 60-senator super majority — is required to cut off debate and move a bill to final passage in the Senate. DREAM, which would provide legal status for illegal immigrants who serve in the military or earn college degrees, is not expected to hit that mark, effectively scrapping the bill for the time being.

That will set the stage for a cloture vote on a standalone DADT repeal bill, which proponents say is destined for passage. That will be the first step toward ending the nearly two-decade practice of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, but not if anyone who works with them knows they’re gay. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has been the driving force behind lining up the votes for DADT repeal, says he has the 60 he needs and most observers expect there to be little drama today.

Lieberman and his allies in the Democratic caucus are expected to get help repealing DADT from at least four Republicans — Sens. Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Olympia Snowe (ME). Most of the rest of the GOP caucus is expected to vote against it, though Lieberman said yesterday that the bill may pick up support from the GOP as it heads toward final passage.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) has not said whether he’ll support the standalone bill — and he voted against repeal the last time it came up, as part of a defense spending bill last week. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who voted for cloture on the spending bill, has also not said how he’ll vote. Proponents of repeal say they don’t need either vote to win today.

Supposing cloture is reached (which, again, is all but a foregone conclusion according to supporters of repeal), a final vote on the bill to end DADT could come as early as today. More likely than not, however, 30 hours of final debate on the measure will be kicked off by the cloture vote. That puts a final repeal vote sometime late Sunday.

The House already passed its version of the standalone DADT repeal (as well as DREAM, for what it’s worth) which means that if the Senate passes the repeal this weekend it will go straight to the president’s desk for likely signature.

Mexican Consulate in Greenville Dec 18-19

December 16th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives One Response
Mexican Consulate in Greenville Dec 18-19

I have contacted the Greenville, NC Hilton Hotel. CEO Tom Glennon’s spokesman has assured me that the Hilton Hotel has nothing to do with the event at the Greenville Convention Center this weekend.

I have contacted the Greenville, NC Hilton Hotel. CEO Tom Glennon’s spokesman has assured me that the Hilton Hotel has nothing to do with the event at the Greenville Convention Center this weekend.

NCFIRE obtained this information from the Mexican Consulate in Raleigh, NC when we called inquiring about the event they had posted on their event calendar: .

NCFIRE regrets the information that we passed along in our previous email and we request that our members please stop calling the Greenville Hilton Hotel.

— James Johnson

The mobile Mexican Consulate is coming to the Greenville NC Convention Center this Saturday AND Sunday (18th and 19th) to sell Mexican matricula consular ID cards and Mexican passports to “UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS” in the area. They will also be REGISTERING PEOPLE TO VOTE! The Mexican Consulate has leased space in the TAXPAYER FUNDED Convention Center for 2 days because of the large number of illegal aliens they expect to show up. Why is a foreign national government handling their affairs on North Carolina taxpayer property?

The center is located at 303 Greenville Blvd., Greenville, NC. Their phone number is: (252) 321-7671. Here is the Greenville Convention Center calendar which shows the event:

The local Hilton Hotel is sponsoring the event and Tom Glennon is the CEO of the hotel. His contact info is: (252) 355-5000. **Call Mr. Glennon and ask him why he is aiding and abetting illegal aliens by sponsoring this event on local taxpayer property?

Talking Points

1. No foreign governments should be using U.S./NC taxpayer property for the purpose of selling ID cards to those illegally present in OUR country.
2. Legally present foreign nationals have a passport from their home country and a U.S. VISA. Nothing less.
3. Continuing to “aid and abet” ILLEGAL ALIENS is VERY costly to taxpayers. Schooling, medical, housing, interpreters, legal representation, etc.
4. Insist that your elected officials represent legal citizens and their interests. We are the voting constituents.
5. Border enforcement; first, foremost, and only. No AMNESTY, aiding or abetting is acceptable.

Contact List Below…please be the polite and respectful Americans that we pride ourselves on.

1. Contact: Congressman Walter Jones at the phone numbers below and ask him to continue his support of immigration enforcement in North Carolina.

Greenville N.C. Office:
Congressman Walter Jones
1105-C Corporate Drive
Greenville, NC 27858-4211
Phone: 252-931-1003 or toll-free (in N.C. only) 800-351-1697
Fax: 252-931-1002

Washington, DC Office:
Congressman Walter Jones
2333 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3415
Fax: 202-225-3286

2. Contact the Greenville City Council:

E-mail these members at the following link:

Mayor Patricia C. (Pat) Dunn
1103 Ragsdale Road
Greenville, NC 27858
Telephone: 252-758-1692

Mayor Pro-Tem Bryant Kittrell
PO Box 7207
Greenville, NC 27835
Telephone: 252-355-0088

Council Member Kandie Smith
PO Box 7207
Greenville, NC 27835
Telephone: 252-565-4617

Council Member Rose H. Glover
2115 South Village Drive
Greenville, NC 27834
Telephone: 252-752-1113

Council Member Marion Blackburn
PO Box 7207
200 West Fifth Street
Greenville, NC 27835
Telephone: 252-931-0728

Council Member Calvin Mercer
PO Box 7207
Greenville, NC 27835
Telephone: 252-551-9189

Council Member Max Joyner, Jr.
105 East Arlington Boulevard
Greenville, NC 27858
Telephone: 252-756-8300

3. Contact the Pitt County Commissioners:

Kimberly W. Hines, Clerk to the Board
Pitt County Office Building
1717 W. 5th Street
Greenville, NC 27834
252.830.6311 (Fax)

Information Courtesy of –

James Johnson
North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement

‘The Daily Show’ Crosses Over with ‘Sesame Street’ to Spoof Michael Steele

December 16th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives No Responses
‘The Daily Show’ Crosses Over with ‘Sesame Street’ to Spoof Michael Steele


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Great Gaffesby
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

What are your thoughts concerning Michael Steele’s candidacy for RNC Chairman in 2011? Who do you believe could do a better job than he? Are you planning on participating in the upcoming Republican conventions (that will be electing new leadership)?

Richard Burr’s Earmarks

December 16th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives 4 Responses
Richard Burr’s Earmarks

Here are Senator Burr’s list of Earmarks for the 2011 Omnibus bill, do you think he heard us in November? It’s business as usual in DC. Time for a call to his office at (202) 224-3154. Click here to read the list.

WSSU: They did it again!

December 10th, 2010 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives 6 Responses
WSSU: They did it again!

Former WSSU Vice Chancellor Uses University E-mail Account to Support DREAM Act

WINSTON-SALEM — Pedro Martinez, an education professor and former provost and vice chancellor of Winston Salem State University, disregarded e-mails from the chancellor of the university and the president of the UNC system warning faculty not to engage in political activity on state time or using state resources.

On Dec. 7, Martinez sent sports sciences professor Himanshu Gopalan an e-mail supporting the federal DREAM Act and instructed him to forward it to “the rest of the faculty.”

Martinez received the e-mail from the American Association of University Women.

“Help Support the American Dream,” the e-mail began. “Write your senators now,” it continued, “and tell them that undocumented students who have known no other home than the United States deserve the opportunity to pursue the dream of a higher education.” (read more)

You might remember back in October when this same University used faculty email to round up support for the Democrat party. By now, it’s become apparent that this University has no trouble begging for forgiveness since they do not have permission to lobby political support while receiving taxpayers hard earned money.