Once again Greg Lindberg is in hot water:

The regulator alleged that Lindberg, once North Carolina’s largest political donor, and an associate looted more than $75 million from Lindberg’s insurance companies, compromising the companies’ liquidity and leading to a state takeover of the insurers that has kept policy holders from receiving payments.

The money flowed through a Malta-based advisory firm through complicated schemes designed to mask the fact that Lindberg treated insurance company money as his own, SEC investigators said in their complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

I'm sorely tempted to label him the "Maltese Vulture," but those carrion fowl actually serve a purpose. Speaking of disgusting and contemptible people, the South Carolina House just passed a near-total abortion ban yesterday:

HEALTH AND LIFE TAKING A BACKSEAT TO POLITICS IN NC ABORTION POLICY: What did North Carolinians learn late on Wednesday when federal judge William Osteen Jr. allowed enforcement of the state’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy? They learned that health and life are not the most important matters to House Speaker Tim Moore and state Senate Leader Phil Berger. To Republicans Berger and Moore it is all about politics, the fall elections and their machinations to gain a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly. In reacting to Osteen’s unsurprising ruling, Moore mainly attacked Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, who appropriately recused himself from personal involvement in the matter after stating he opposed the previously unconstitutional state law. Berger, similarly took up a partisan cudgel. “Democrats’ position on abortion can only be characterized as extreme,” he said. Yet, if Berger and Moore are looking for extreme positions on abortion, they need look no further than legislation their fellow Republicans have introduced, which is still pending in the General Assembly and that they’ve not renounced. Republicans want the State Constitution (House Bill -158) to declare life starts “at the moment” of fertilization. Anyone who willfully tries or destroys a life is accountable for attempted murder. Is that what Moore and Berger want? Do they back legislation (House Bill 31) banning abortions after a “detectable” fetal heartbeat? Are these the “protection for the unborn” that Moore and Berger are promoting? We won't get any solid answers to such questions until after the November Election, because Republicans fear "informed" voters more than anything else.
https://www.wral.com/editorial-health-and-life-taking-backseat-to-politics-in-n-c-abortion-policy/20...

TELL US WHERE YOU STAND. BAN ABORTION? MORE LIMITS? VOTERS MUST KNOW NOW: Just this week in conservative Kansas, voters overwhelmingly rejected – 59% no to 41% yes --- an effort to amend the state’s constitution to so legislators could further restrict and even ban abortions in the state. Regardless of the issue, but especially in a matter that touches nearly every North Carolinian so personally and directly, offering broad platitudes and generalities won’t cut it. It is evasive and intended to mislead rather than dealing fully, honestly and plainly with those who will be most impacted by what legislators do. Voters deserve to know, and candidates are obliged to express in detail, where they stand. North Carolina voters must know, before they cast ballots this fall, in specific detail where every legislative candidate stands. Do they stand with extremes (Moore’s description) like the Republican legislators who want the State Constitution to say life starts at fertilization and anyone who willfully tries or destroys a life is accountable for attempted murder? No voter should wonder where their candidates for the General Assembly stand on Roe v. Wade and the rights of women to make critical decisions concerning their health and life. This is a "yes or no" question, and anything in-between should not even be printed or reported. Women deserve the truth, not calculated deception.
https://www.wral.com/editorial-tell-us-where-you-stand-ban-abortion-more-limits-voters-must-know-now...

CANDIDATES, TELL VOTERS CLEARLY AND FULLY, WHERE YOU STAND ON ABORTION: It is a question every candidate for the General Assembly should be asked and one that every candidate – regardless of political affiliation – should answer in full and complete detail. Most Democratic candidates, including incumbents, have declared their support – at a minimum -- for laws that affirm the state’s current abortion laws and support for the standard in Roe v. Wade – essentially leaving the decision to the woman during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Voters need to demand and end equivocations and vagaries, like those offered up by Berger. On one hand Berger says he wants some period of “autonomy” for woman. But then, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, said: “Senate Republicans will determine whether other steps are appropriate to strengthen our pro-life laws.” Further, Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore demanded that state Attorney General Josh Stein “take all necessary actions to lift the injunction currently barring full enforcement of our state’s abortion restrictions.” This is no time for vague sloganeering that offers pacification to the partisan base while hiding specifics from more skeptical voters. The sad truth is, most of those who historically vote Republican don't want to know. They would prefer the comfortable deniability that ambiguity provides, safely avoiding the moral crossroads. It's not so much the extremism we should fear as it is the apathy that allows it to fester.
https://www.wral.com/editorial-candidates-tell-voters-clearly-and-fully-where-you-stand-on-abortion/...

IT'S TIME TO STOP. NOTHING "FICTIONAL" ABOUT JAN 6 INSURRECTION: Phil Berger can’t have it both ways – as he seems to try to do during his meandering reply to reporter Travis Fain’s question about the Jan. 6 committee hearings. In one breath, Berger says: “I generally steer away from fictional readings … What’s going on there is an effort to paint a picture that is an exaggeration, in many respects, of what happened. And, clearly, in many respects it is an exaggeration of what, or maybe even just a fictional account what someone’s perceptions is of people’s motivations.” He suggests that in 2000, Democrats did the same thing. While Democratic nominee Al Gore’s campaign sought a detailed recount of the close results in Florida, Gore also, on Dec. 13, 2000, conceded the election to George W. Bush. Democrat Hillary Clinton, in the early-morning hours after Election Day 2016, conceded to Trump. It was an act of faith in the law and our nation that American’s have yet to see from Republican Donald Trump. Aside from the fact that we all watched the insurrection as it took place, the most damning testimony dealing with "motivations" has come from within the Republican Party fold; a brilliant move by Congressional Dems. And just like with gerrymandering, Berger's, "Democrats did it too!" falls flat for lack of relevance.
https://www.wral.com/editorial-it-s-time-to-stop-nothing-fictional-about-jan-6-insurrection/20372563/