Why a TrueBlue Dem is Voting for BJ Lawson (the one and only Republican he will dare support...)

Submitted by raymack27278 on Fri, 07/18/2008 - 5:00pm.

I want to be clear about one thing from the onset of this post: I have nothing against David Price on a personal level. I think that he has served the 4th District fairly well. I thank him for his service to the 4th District for the twenty-two years that he served. With that, I will explain why I am working to get Willliam "BJ" Lawson elected as the next representative for North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District.

I met BJ Lawson in May at Hillsborough's Last Friday (a monthly event sponsored by the Hillsborouh Arts Coucil). I was at the event representing the Hillary Clinton campaign (Hillsborough HillStar Leader) and BJ was there representing the BJ Lawson campaign (big surprise, eh?). I must say that I first thought, "Ok, I am next to this Republican, great!" Bu then we talked about the issues and I was really taken with how real BJ came across to me and how much I really enjoyed talking with JoLynn (his wonderful bride) and him. I talked with BJ and explained to him why I was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. To my surprise he really listened. He listened! I am not talking about the type of listening that most politicians do. I am talking about the listening that compels you to bear it all because for once someone really is listening.

Another cool story about when I first met BJ actually happened the day after we met. I serve a local non-denominational church as its Pastor of Youth Ministry. Over this same weekend I was also leading a church-wide effort named Be the Church. I invited BJ to join us in helping a neighborhood watch association beautify their park; he came and did great work. He really learned how to use a post digger in the name of being the church. BJ is a man who stands on the principles.

I like BJ on a personal level. But that is not all, I like his stance on the Iraq War; he opposes it now and has always opposed it. My all time favorite is BJ's stance against the asanine and Constitution ignoring "Patriot Act", REAL ID and the other attempts to erode civil liberties(which is anything but a Patriotic Act). He sees that this is an affront on our civil liberties and this Act must not stand.

Straight up, this guy is very principled and very anti-establishment. I know that he is very much into listening to all sides of arguments. He is very willing to adjust his position if he has proven, by reason and sound evidence, that a change in position is necessary. For me, I am voting for principled leadership and someone who is going to represent me and not special interest groups. I know that BJ will do a great job if we just give him a chance. I can tell you this, he is very open to engaging others (as evidenced by his constant blogging here, lol) so I am sure that he would be willing to talk to you (as we have done numerous times on many tough issues). Give this guy a chance. Check out his website and keep your mind truly open.

Peace and Liberty,
raymack27278

1

I call bullshit

Submitted by TrueMeckDem on Fri, 07/18/2008 - 6:25pm.

Yea, he might be a good guy and he may claim to be anti-establishment but if he makes it to Congress, he will vote the Republican Party line at least 85% of time, that is the average of Republicans in the 110th Congress with 74.3% being the lowest score - (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/)

Do you really want to vote for someone that will vote the Republican Party way on choice, war, the budget, education, the environment, and other issues that are important to you?

Wake Forest won't play us anymore
Michigan last year
LSU - you are next
Go ASU!

No.

Submitted by FireofLiberty on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 6:27am.

What he'll do is vote the Constitution line 100% of the time.

Branden's picture

What a relief

Submitted by Branden on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 9:33am.

I'm relieved to hear that 75% to 85% of Republican votes in Congress over the past two years have been perfectly ("100%") in line with the Constitution.

You, uh, wouldn't want to try backing that up with some actual analysis, would you?

--
recently transplanted from Indianapolis, IN to Durham, NC

I wouldn't recommend drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson

That's not what I was saying.

Submitted by FireofLiberty on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 10:13am.

The Republicans in Congress, as well as the Democrats, HAVEN'T been in line with the Constitution. That's the point. BJ, unlike them, will vote 100% in line with the Constitution.

raymack27278's picture

He will not vote the way of the Republican Party...

Submitted by raymack27278 on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 4:41pm.

TrueMeckDem,

I certainly do not want to vote for someone who will vote the way of the Republican Party. Quite frankly, I have been less than pleased with Rep. Price's voting record on the war. I have placed a direct quote from his website below with regard to the war. The rest of those issues can be found on the website by clicking here

I have gotten to know BJ very well and we have talked extensively about all of these issues. Frankly, I agree a lot of his solutions to the problems that we face and I disagree with him. One of the things that I have so enjoyed about BJ is the diversity of advisers and friend he surrounds himself with. He has a vast amount of support from a diverse group of people. He has Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians,unaffiliated voters and others on his team.

He will truly represent this district and use the Constitution of the United States of America as his marching orders and not a party's platform. I can tell you that he has some very different views than you may expect. I encourage you and anyone who has questions to email him at: bj@lawsonforcongress.com

As your Congressman, I will insist that we use deadly force in self-defense, and that we only go to war with a Congressional Declaration of War as specified in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I will resist any attempts to declare preemptive war . As any sheriff knows, "If you start a fight, you lose your rights [to self defense]".

I will work to keep our nation secure with an economic offense and strong military defense, instead of an economic defense and military offense. We will accomplish much more through diplomacy, trade, and a strong defense than sanctions, offensive war and occupation. In the post-Cold War era of international instability, we face insurgent enemies who use asymmetric tactics. Our response must be matched to those tactics, and must address the causes of the underlying instability. We cannot fight today's enemy with yesterday's strategy...We need an orderly and immediate military withdrawal from Iraq. That does not mean that we abandon that country, or the Middle East. Instead, we must change our focus from unilateral offensive war and occupation to multilateral coalition-building, and substantially engage other countries in the region with overwhelming diplomatic force to help fill the vacuum we created. Fighting the forces of extremism and instability requires governments that offer alternatives to nihilism, poverty and violence. Those alternatives do not come at gunpoint, although force is required for security and self-defense.

We need to be intellectually honest and recognize that our current foreign policy is bankrupting our nation. The Soviet Union’s economy collapsed trying to build a war machine it couldn’t afford, and it lost the Cold War as a result. Now the same simple math is leading to the self-inflicted collapse of our own economy. Where are we getting the money to pay for our wars and global empire? We're borrowing and printing $1 to $3 billion per day from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and our Federal Reserve. Do you enjoy working to pay interest to the Chinese government

"

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

nctodc's picture

Um, Okay

Submitted by nctodc on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 11:05am.

You neglected to mention something that BJ Lawson would do that David Price hasn't. Price was against the war from the beginning and did not support the Patriot Act (or its subsequent revision).

Moreover, I appreciate that you think he's going to vote in line with the Constitution, but what does that mean? Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich both make the same pledge, but they have very different interpretations of the Constitution? Does Lawson believe that there's a constitutional protection for choice? For federal funding of education? For funding of health care?

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

raymack27278's picture

notodc, You got some readin to do...

Submitted by raymack27278 on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 4:53pm.

You neglected to mention something that BJ Lawson would do that David Price hasn't. Price was against the war from the beginning and did not support the Patriot Act (or its subsequent revision).

This is a direct quote from BJ's website:

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: At the birth of our nation, concerned states including North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution without the accompanying Bill of Rights. Our founders would never have tolerated today’s assault on civil rights, individual liberty, and personal privacy. The Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act of 2006? A National ID Card via RealID? The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? No, thanks.

As your Congressman, I will fight legislation that erodes our civil liberties.

Hey, my response is in jest, but I'll give you the same advice that I gave TrueMeckDem: email BJ with any of your questions and he will gladly let you know where he stands. You will probably not agree with him fully, but you will get the opportunity to talk it up with a great guy who you will probably like, on a personal level. Who knows, you just might find that yall agree on more than you thought. His email address is: bj@lawsonforcongress.com

This guy is great because it is so hard to package him into some cute, neat package. He has really refreshed my political spirit (esp. after my girl "lost" the primary...) :-)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

Huh!?

Submitted by FireofLiberty on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 5:21pm.

Respectfully, you need to do some research and check your facts, because you have everything backwards and the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just said is true.

First, BJ does not support the PATRIOT Act or the war in Iraq. BJ inequvically opposes both. He would not have voted for the PATRIOT Act. He would not have voted for the war in Iraq. We will not vote to renew the PATRIOT Act. He will not vote to continue or fund the war in Iraq.

Second, Price DID vote for the PATRIOT Act.

If you don't believe me, here's your proof: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3108

As a matter of a fact, BJ and Price recently had an exchange about this when BJ attended Price's town hall meeting in Durham and asked him about his vote on the PATRIOT Act, as well as other legislation that are a threat to our civil liberties. Specifically he asked Price if he read the bills before he voted on them. Of course, Price dodged the question. Video of this exchange can be found at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAZ_jhqIjA

Finally, it is true that Price voted against the war, but he has since voted for appropriation bills containing funding for the war. BJ would not.

raymack27278's picture

Oh, and by the way...

Submitted by raymack27278 on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 5:32pm.

Rep. Price definitely voted for the Patriot Act. At Price's town hall meeting BJ went there and ask him if he actually read that bill before voting to approve its legislation (implying that he must have not since this legislation is such an egregious affront to the Constitution). Click here to see that video clip on YouTube.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

Everybody says they support the Constitution,

Submitted by scharrison on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 12:46pm.

but often their solutions end up being in conflict with parts of the document. For instance, when BJ says this:

Why do we have this problem? Well, our monetary system is complex, but one problem boils down to this: our federal government needs way too much money. Where does the government get its money? It has three choices: take it from you in taxes, borrow it and create more debt for our children, or print new money and make every dollar in your pocket worth less.

he's basically challenging this:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

By pushing for a relaxation of currency standards so folks like Ron Paul can get their face on a coin, BJ is not only attacking the Federal Reserve, he's attacking the Constitution as well.

A couple of things...

Submitted by FireofLiberty on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 5:01pm.

The Federal Reserve is not a government institution, it is a private institution. More specifically a system of private banks which the government has very little oversight over. This is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution.

The way things work is while the federal government does print the money via the U.S. mints controlled by the Treasury Department it is the Federal Reserve that tells the Treasury how much money to print and when. They control the printing presses.

Second, let's pay attention to that keyword there: PRINT. No where will you find that in the Constitution when the creation of money is discussed. Instead what the Constitution says is that the federal government may COIN money. There's a big different there. Coins are made of precious metal and contain real value. The Constitution also clearly states that only gold and silver can be legal tender.

It is quite clear that the monetary system of today is not what the Founders intended and not within the bounds of the Constitution.

So, I regret to inform you that you are wrong in your conclusions regarding how our monetary system works and what the Constitution actually says.

Every word counts, my friend.

Submitted by scharrison on Sat, 07/19/2008 - 11:59pm.

The Constitution also clearly states that only gold and silver can be legal tender.

Pat attention to the first two words here:

Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

This is a directive limiting individual states' behavior in these areas, not the collective "United States". These activities are listed elsewhere in the Constitution, either expressly against the law (of the U.S.) or exclusively the power of Congress.

Also, in the wording of the section you're referring to:

make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

the term "make" does not mean to fabricate/construct, it means what we (today) would define as "use". And it was more about keeping states from developing their own monetary systems (or using land as barter) than it was setting aside coin as the only possible currency.

While there was an aversion to the use of "paper money" during and after the birth of our nation, that stemmed from the various "bills of credit" that were circulated at the time. These ranged from an illegibly-scrawled I.O.U. to a fancy block-printed parchment, depending on the individual seeking credit.

There was a lot of "war" industry and commerce taking place at the time, and precious metals were (and still are) too rare to facilitate all of these transactions. Of course, due to the troubled times as well as dishonest men, many of these bills of credit ended up irredeemable. But there is little doubt that we would have been unlikely to succeed in the war effort without them.

Here's Madison from The Federalist #44:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency.

This is really about having a common currency (to tie the states together) and avoiding "bad credit" woes. While I do agree that vastly increasing the amount of circulated money devalues said money, our GDP is around 13 trillion dollars per year. Unless you're an alchemist...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content

Since When is Campbell Brown My Hero?


Trying to get a straight answer out of McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

BTW: I'm glad that Talking Points Memo posted this excerpt on Youtube, but since when does TiVo'ing something allow you to brand it with your logo? That's the Wild West...