Saturday, October 13, 2012

Tea Party "terrorists" now on U.S. Army kill list? Imagination of Napolitano and others runs wild.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 14, 2012

October 13, 2012 By   Western Journalism

Tea Party SC Tea Party “Terrorists” now on U.S. Army kill list? 



A retired Army colonel and a professor of history at the University of Kansas have co-written an article instructing the U.S. Army how to properly destroy “…extremist militia [insurgents] motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement.
Colonel Kevin Benson, who teaches modern warfare to soldiers at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Ft. Leavenworth and Associate Professor Jennifer Weber have created a scenario in which activists under the influence of that apogee of American terrorism—Tea Party members—“…take over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest.”

How exactly do the authors explain such a thing happening?  “After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief.” In short, those evil, rich Republicans have cruelly separated the American public from all of the “free” money and services Big Brother has provided over the past several decades.

As a result, “a high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants.” For as we all know, “after almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.”

Of course, Benson and Weber make it clear that “mainstream” Americans and politicians react quite negatively to the aggression of the radical right. The insurgents, however, “…invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its ‘just powers from the consent of the governed’…” 

As a result, they are joined in their maniacal overthrow of the true government by “…other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups.”

The name of this extraordinary piece of work is “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future”. And needless to say, its publication has created something of a stir among rational, non-impaired thinkers across the nation.

Most ask a very pointed question: Why are conservatives targeted as the coming threat to the social and political order of the United States rather than Islamic terrorists or members of the radical left? Shouldn’t those who have already proven themselves eager participants in the art of murder and insurrection be the first to command the attention of law enforcement, whether public or military? Well not if we remember the published warnings of Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security.

According to Janet Napolitano and her boss, the REAL danger emanates from the: “Extreme right-wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

According to much of the Department’s description of would-be terrorists, this nation’s Founders would have been in real trouble with the Obama Regime!

Please take the time to read the 5 page, Full Spectrum article of Benson and Weber. It is a chilling reminder of just how important the November election really is.

Bus Driver tells 12-year-old he should have been aborted because of Romney yard sign.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 13, 2012

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 11, 2012, 7:03 AM



A bus driver told a 12 year-old student he should
have been aborted because his family had posted a
Romney-Ryan sign in their yard.

Freedom Eden reported:

Mark Belling discussed this story on his radio program yesterday. It’s another tale of a Leftist behaving badly.

The Leftist, a 78-year-old woman, a New Berlin school bus driver, has been harassing a student on her bus route because there’s a Mitt Romney yard sign at his home.
 The child attends a Catholic school in New Berlin. He rides a Durham school bus. The company also provides service to the New Berlin public school district.

Belling read a letter from the 12-year-old boy’s mother, detailing the alleged abusive behavior by the bus driver. Apparently, the Romney-Ryan yard sign bugs the bus driver and she’s been harassing the boy, making rude comments to him related to politics.

When the driver engaged the 12-year-old boy in a political conservation, the youngster responded by saying that Obama is pro-abortion.

The bus driver allegedly said to the child, “Maybe your mom should have chosen abortion for you.”

Understandably, this really upset the boy. Other kids on the bus verified the boy’s account and are providing written statements.The mom made her son’s school aware of the situation. She also went to Durham School Service in New Berlin and spoke to Michael Bennett, the manager.


October 10, 2012
DurhamSchool Services statement on bus driver issue in New Berlin, Wisconsin:

“"Durham School Services was notified by a parent on Tuesday, Oct. 9, that a bus driver in NewBerlin, Wisconsin, engaged in a political debate with students the previous day and made an inappropriate remark to a child. Durham immediately removed the driver from service pending an investigation, which resulted in the termination of the driver. Prior to this incident, the
driver had an incident-free record while serving the community as a Durham school bus driver
for more than 20 years. Notwithstanding, the driver’s remark was insensitive and inappropriate.
Durham has apologized to the family.We remain strongly committed to the safe transportation
of students in the community.”"


Friday, October 12, 2012

John Bolton: America's next Secretary of State? Well I do hope so.

Verne Strickland / October 6, 2012

11 Oct 2012 161 post a comment

"Radical Islam is a severe threat against America that is growing and the White House doesn’t seem to recognize or understand it because it doesn’t fit with their narrative of the Arab Spring. It is for either ideological reasons or for political reasons but either way the White House doesn’t appear to understand the dangers”, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told me recently. 

Bolton is also a foreign policy adviser to the Romney campaign.

“I’m real concerned because Muslims worldwide understand the dangers of radicalism more than the White House does”, Bolton said. “Al Qaeda remains a very dangerous threat. You have a Muslim Brotherhood president in Egypt with Mohammed Morsi.

 Remember in 1981 Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. You have a 14 year old girl who was just shot and nearly killed by the Taliban...Radical Islamists and world leaders from Russia to China, North Korea and Iran have sized up President Obama as a weak and ineffective President.”

On the matter of Iran Bolton is convinced that despite tough public warnings and rhetoric the Obama administration--if reelected--will never support a military attack to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

“Obama will never use military force on Iran. The Israelis know that and the Iranians know it too…The Israelis can destroy key aspects on their own (Iranian nuclear facilities) of what we know is there right now. Though it stretches the outer limits of Israel’s abilities, again, based only upon what it is that we know is there now.”

When asked about the significance of "outing" the now imprisoned Pakistani dentist who helped locate bin Laden--a devastating story all but forgotten by the mainstream media--Bolton said:
“It sends a signal to our allies that you pay a high price if you come to the aid of the United States. But it also is part of a troubling trend of national security leaks by this administration. They seem more concerned about spiking the ball than they do about keeping from putting our national security at risk.”

Since I routinely receive email from readers and listeners advocating John Bolton for Secretary of State, I asked him about his interest in that position should Mitt Romney get elected. He never ruled out the possibility:

“Look I’m flattered by such suggestions but first and foremost we need to get a Republican elected to the White House before we can ever consider engaging in such conversation.As my former boss James Baker used to say, ‘keep your eye on the prize.' Right now everything is predicated on getting Mitt Romney elected."

Decker: Biden meltdown burns Obama campaign. His total lack of courtesy and dignity didn't play well anywhere.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

The 2012 presidential election is one of the most momentous crossroads in U.S. history. As Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee, stated in his Thursday debate against Vice President Joe Biden, the outcome on Election Day will determine “what kind of country we are going to give our kids.”

Under Obama-administration policies, out-of-control government spending has grown to such an extent that federal debt is now larger than the gross domestic product of the United States, the largest economy in the world. U.S. power and prestige in the world are in such dramatic decline that armed Islamists can overrun an American diplomatic compound, murder a U.S. ambassador and get away with it. On the economic and foreign-policy fronts, our nation is in chaos. The Obama-Biden ticket can’t run on its record of failure so it has moved to a desperate scorched-earth strategy.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Biden’s obnoxious, smirking, rude behavior on the debate stage was the most disrespectful performance of any presidential or vice-presidential candidate in the history of televised election debates, which goes back to the 1960 contest between then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Sen. John F. Kennedy. In the end, the arguments and messages of the two candidates this week didn’t matter so much because Mr. Biden suffered an overwhelming loss on the likability scorecard. As Brit Hume of Fox News characterized the match, “It looked like a cranky old man debating a polite young man.”

Out of the gates, it was clear Mr. Ryan had the edge with his solid, policy-based answers to the early questions, which forced Mr. Biden to drop the gloves and play dirty. A count by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus showed that Mr. Biden butted in and interrupted Mr. Ryan 82 times. The incessant smugness, jesting and sneering condescension might have looked like Mr. Biden was an unhinged lunatic coming apart at the seams, but it would be a mistake to conclude the inappropriateness was spontaneous on the vice president’s part. The Biden sideshow was orchestrated by design because the liberal administration knows it has to avoid the issues, especially the sinking economy.

The pressure is on the incumbent Democrats because the election is less than a month away and their campaign is in freefall. After Republican standard-bearer Mitt Romney destroyed President Obama in the Oct. 3 debate, momentum shifted dramatically in the challenger’s favor, with Mr. Romney taking the lead in national polls and jumping ahead or closing the gap in vital swing states. For example, in a Battleground poll released on Monday, Mr. Romney has a massive 16-point lead among independents nationwide.

Real Clear Politics has shifted five key states - Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire - to being a toss-up from leaning Obama a week ago. In must-win Florida, Mr. Romney has taken a commanding 7-point lead, beating out the president with 51 percent compared to 44 percent, according to a survey published Thursday by the Tampa Bay Times, Bay News 9 and the Miami Herald. A month ago, Mr. Obama was up by 1 point in the Sunshine State.

The heat is on for a good reason. When it comes to substance and the issues, the Democrats are in big trouble - which is probably why Mr. Biden felt forced to make statements that were categorically untrue while sitting across the table from Mr. Ryan at Centre College in Danville, Ky., on Thursday night. 

The biggest prevarication of all centered on White House bungling in Libya that caused the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans when Islamists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” the vice president asserted. Both the U.S. State Department under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and military officers who were part of the security team at the Benghazi outpost contradict that whopper.

Scrambling to find a scapegoat, Mr. Biden threw dedicated public servants under the bus and claimed the Obama administration’s stupid line that the Benghazi attack was a response to a YouTube video was the fault of the intelligence community. Left unsaid was that intelligence reports informed the Oval Office within days that the attack was coordinated to mark the Sept. 11, 2001 anniversary and was linked to al Qaeda. 

He also attacked Republicans for George W. Bush-launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, blamed U.S. debt on these responses to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, and claimed he didn’t support the deployments when in fact he voted for resolutions in the Senate to authorize use of force in both conflicts. Whether outright lies or sloppy slips of the lip, Mr. Biden must figure making stuff up has a better chance of winning people over than the truth. He might be right because the truth is, by every measure, America is worse off than four years ago.

Mr. Biden’s total lack of courtesy and dignity didn’t play well in Peoria or anywhere else. An NBC snapshot poll awarded the Republican congressman with a devastating 20-point victory, 56 percent to 36 percent, over the Democrat veep. Viewer reaction on liberal CNN gave the debate win to Mr. Ryan over Mr. Biden by a 4-point margin, 48 percent to 44.

These numbers don’t bode well for Barack. Four years ago, he ran promising to bring change and restore hope. As Mr. Ryan put it, Mr. Obama hasn’t delivered so his 2012 campaign has mobilized to “attack, blame and defame.” It won’t work. Iran is getting closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, federal deficits are topping a trillion dollars every year, and millions of workers can’t find a job. Too many voters are hurting and Joe Biden’s response is to laugh. As Obama-Biden will find out in November, Americans don’t think it’s funny.

Brett M. Decker is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. He is coauthor of the new book “Bowing to Beijing” (Regnery, 2011).

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Paul Ryan: I'm strongly pro-life; Biden: I'm a pro-abortion Catholic.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 12, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden and Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin participate in the vice presidential debate at Centre College. (AP Photo/Pool-Rick Wilking)

 by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 10/11/12 11:07 PM

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan made a strong pro-life case against abortion during the Vice-Presidential debate on Thursday night.
During a debate marked by Vice President Joe Biden’s snark and interrupting, Ryan calmly and cooly laid out why he takes a pro-life position and how his Catholic faith has helped guide him to a place where he opposes abortion.
“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life,” Ryan said. “Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.”
“You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception,” Ryan continued.
“That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother,” Ryan said.
When it comes to abortion, Ryan said “the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.”
During his response, Vice President Biden essentially laid out the pro-life position of the Catholic Church, of which he is a member, and then he proceeded to talk about how he violates it.
“My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said.
“But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body,” Biden continued. “It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.”
Later, Ryan laid out his pro-life views further. 


“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination,” he said.
Biden talked about the closeness of the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion and knocked Governor Romney for having pro-life former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as his judicial advisor.
“The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen,” Biden said. “I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court.”

SC Voter ID Law barred from 2012 launch, pre-cleared for 2013.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 11, 2012

— A federal panel has cleared South Carolina’s controversial voter ID law, but it won’t go into effect until 2013.

WASHINGTON -- A three-judge panel barred South Carolina's voter ID law from going into effect before the 2012 election on Wednesday, but said it could be implemented in elections beginning in 2013.

"Act R54 as interpreted thus satisfies Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and we grant pre-clearance for South Carolina to implement Act R54 for future elections beginning with any elections in 2013," wrote the court.

"As explained below, however, given the short time left before the 2012 elections, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law –- particularly the new “reasonable impediment” provision –- and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory retrogressive effects on African-American voters in 2012, we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections."
The court ruled that the law not have a discriminatory purpose.
Under the law, known as R54, voters without an ID can sign an affidavit at a polling location saying they have a "reasonable impediment" to obtaining identification -- such as lacking a car, having a disability or not having an accurate birth certificate. The voter is then allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which must be counted "unless the board has grounds to believe the affidavit is false," according to the law.
South Carolina is one of 16 southern states that require pre-clearance for voting laws under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a history of racism. The Justice Department refused to pre-clear the state's ID law in December, citing statistics showing that voters without ID are 20 percent more likely to be black, and one-third of registered minority voters do not have a driver's license.

R54 requires voters to show a driver's license or other photo identification, passport, military identification or a voter registration card with a photo on it. Gov. Nikki Haley (R) signed the law in 2011.
(Click here to read the decision in full.)

UPDATE: 2:43 p.m. -- In a statement, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson called the ruling a "major victory" for the state. Gov. Nikki Haley (R) praised the ruling on Facebook: "The Feds keep throwing punches but in South Carolina heels and boxing gloves prevail! This is another win for our state and country!"

Leah Aden, assistant council for the Political Participation Group of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which joined the Justice Department in the case, told HuffPost, "Our general response is that it's significant and important that this law would discriminate against voters in the 2012 election."

Aden added that she hopes "that the state's efforts at educating voters between now and 2013 go into effect immediately so voters can comply and are not prevented from voting."

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Obama's black turnight nightmare may be coming true. Sweet dreams!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 10, 2012


Thomas Lifson
September 17, 2012

When Barack Obama suddenly changed his position on gay marriage, many people (including me) predicted that this could have a dampening effect on black turnout, because many black churches take their Scripture quite seriously.  

It might be too much to expect black pastors to urge their flocks to vote for a Republican (and Mormon) candidate, but staying home and not voting might well be an option to protest the discarding of a bedrock tenet of faith.

The Associated Press is now reporting that this scenario may indeed be developing:
Some black clergy see no good presidential choice between a Mormon candidate and one who supports gay marriage, so they are telling their flocks to stay home on Election Day. That's a worrisome message for the nation's first African-American president, who can't afford to lose any voters from his base in a tight race.

The pastors say their congregants are asking how a true Christian could back same-sex marriage, as President Barack Obama did in May.
As for Republican Mitt Romney, the first Mormon nominee from a major party, congregants are questioning the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its former ban on men of African descent in the priesthood.

Keep in mind that a voter who stays home in disgust as a protest is not going to be voting for down ticket candidates, either. Staying at home is an easy option - the default option, in fact.
 No doubt, there will intense pressure -- pestering, really -- from the Obama campaign turnout  machine, which is reportedly collecting data on a house by house basis, and mobilizing activists to get people to the polls. But such pressure can easily be turned into harassment, and the result might be protest votes from those who are dragged to the polls.
The black turnout this year is going to be one of the most interesting questions of the election.


October 10, 2011 / 11:35 am




WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- The controversy continues with New Hanover County Commissioners in their search to fill former Chairman Ted Davis’s seat.

Last week commissioners ran into a roadblock in deciding whether to pick up Melissa Gott to act as their temporary fifth board member. But now, one commissioner says Gott has got to go.

“With me having questions in my mind as an elected official, I’m not going to put someone on our board that I have questions with,” says board chairman Jonathan Barfield.

The county's Republican party nominated Gott, but after a complaint surfaced questioning whether Gott lives in New Hanover or Brunswick County, commissioners decided to wait.

GOP Chairwoman Rhonda Amoroso says it was all part of a smear campaign against Gott.
“I think what has happened is a witch-hunt and I think there's a double standard and it looks like a war on women to me,” Amoroso says. “As a woman, I am quite offended by it.”

Commissioners unanimously decided to hand over the issue to the GOP and county board of elections. Tuesday, the party turned over a packet containing affidavits and documents proving Gott does live at her address in New Hanover County. However, Barfield says that's not enough to sway his opinion.

“There was no need for me to look through it,” Barfield says. “I mean I’ve gotten more emails from citizens who live in that area saying listen we haven't seen any kids in this home. At night, the lights are out, the whole nine yards. “

Amoroso says she hopes Barfield reconsiders and takes the time to read the packet.

“That’s disturbing to me and very disappointing,” she says. “We spent hours putting that packet together.”
Commissioner Rick Catlin says he plans to thoroughly look over the GOP’s packet on Gott before making any decision.

WWAY also reached out to both commissioners Jason Thompson and Brian Berger in reaction to the packet and Barfield’s stance. Neither has returned our phone calls as of press time.


The folks seem convinced that Catlin is going to win that seat and I think they are acting in anticipation of that. You don’t know who is going to win any race.  I think there are some backroom deals underway. I don’t know what they are exactly or exactly who’s involved. There seems to be some jockeying by the good old boys on the board to get the person they want temporarily if they even go there, or they’re anticipating a vacant seat if Rick Catlin prevails in November.

That’s not a sure thing. But they’re anticipating it. That’s where they’re at. The whole thing is about a temporary action that may affect a future vacancy if that arises. If Rick Catlin were to win that House seat, he would resign and there would be a two-year vacancy. A 45-day vacancy is frankly chump change. But a two-year deal is another issue altogether.   

I’m finding Mr. Barfield to be extremely arrogant. We were at a hearing on Friday where he asked the Party (GOP) to come back with documentation to show Ms. Gott’s residency here in New Hanover County. We spent a lot of time putting the requested information together. 

We have sworn testimony affidavits, documents to prove that she clearly is a resident of New Hanover county. We even have an affidavit from the chairman of the Democrat Party, Alex Hall, attesting to this fact. So at this point, Mr. Barfield is going against his own Party Chair and his own Party. Which I find interesting.

VS:  You mentioned that Barfield appears to be refusing this appointment because of her gender? Or her party? Or some other reason?

I am troubled by the fact that it seems they don’t want a woman on the board. And a Latino woman as well. So I’m just wondering if they have a problem with a Latino woman. If our nominee were a Democrat, they would be cheering her all the way to the White House. 

Barfield is unwittingly giving us information to go after him. And he deserves to have to answer  to his actions here. It’s been turned into a circus, and, sadly, it’s right in the middle of the election cycle, and I really need to be  focusing on the election. This is a needless, time-consuming distraction.

The New Hanover County Republican Party has done its job.  We’ve provided all the information they needed, and it’s apparent to me that Barfield had his mind made up before all this began.  It’s a real shame, I’m extremely disappointed and offended as a woman. 

USA Dot Com: Barfield dismisses Melissa Gott as commissioner despite GOP backing!
GOP Chairwoman Rhonda Amoroso says it was all part of a smear campaign against Gott. “I think what has happened is a witch-hunt and I think there's a double standard and it looks like a war on women to me,” Amoroso says. “As a woman, I am quite offended by it.:

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

USA Dot Com: Conservative Justice Paul Newby a staunch defender of Constitution as he runs to retain his seat on bench

USA Dot Com: Conservative Justice Paul Newby a staunch defender of Constitution as he runs to retain his seat on bench

Conservative Justice Paul Newby a staunch defender of Constitution as he runs to retain his seat on bench

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 9, 2012

North Carolina Supreme Court justice Paul Martin Newby is a defender of the Constitution.

He proved as much when, as an assistant U.S. attorney in 2003, he organized a sting to reacquire North Carolina’s original copy of the Bill of Rights, which had been stolen during the Civil War.

As he tours the state campaigning for reelection in November, Newby is talking quite a bit about the Constitution. Not just the U.S. Constitution, but also the North Carolina Constitution, which he teaches as an adjunct professor of law at Campbell University.
Newby toured the Lake Gaston area on in July making several stops in Warrenton and visiting the plantation of an ancestor of his wife, Nathaniel Macon, before culminating the trip by addressing the Eatons Ferry AARP group’s meeting at the Lake Gaston Lions Club.

The topic of Newby’s talk was the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. His premise — that the debates over several recent controversial decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court did not start in state courts or houses of Congress, but rather in 1787, when the Founding Fathers first debated the U.S. Constitution and then its first 10 amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

“That’s what all the discussion is about,” said Newby. “Did this document grant to Congress the power to control the borders in Arizona at the exclusion of any state, and did this document grant to the federal government the power to regulate healthcare? The debate took place in 2012, but the genesis was in 1787 with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.”

His stump speech is vital history lesson

That he visited Macon’s farm at Buck Spring Plantation earlier in the day fit into the history lesson Newby provided for the AARP group.

A Warren County native, Macon was among the nation’s Founding Fathers. Guided by the philosophical principle that the government that governs least governs best, he argued for limited national government while championing local and state governments.

While the political movement to which Macon subscribed, now called the Anti-Federalists, eventually lost the war, they won a significant battle in the late 1780s. The Bill of Rights was not only prompted by Macon’s Anti-Federalists, but also by his home state.

“The North Carolinians said, ‘We believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we are very concerned about giving any government the kind of power that this federal government would have, and without a Bill of Rights, we will not ratify this Constitution,’” said Newby.

When the U.S. Constitution was originally before the states, it was only ratified by 11 of the original 13 U.S. colonies. North Carolina was the only state to hold a constitutional convention and not ratify the Constitution, while Rhode Island put off even holding a constitutional convention.

The sticking point was individual liberty:

“North Carolina so understood the abusive powers of a tyrannical government, that when we got together in 1776 to draft our state constitution, we first set out a declaration of rights,” said Newby. “We set out 25 fundamental rights that the state could not encroach upon, and then we went home for the day. We said we’re not going to structure this government at the same time we’re talking about the rights, because somehow, somebody may think that governmental power is equal to fundamental rights.

“So we went home, came back the next day and passed the structural form of government, illustrating for North Carolinians that fundamental, individual rights are to be protected, and that government is there to serve and protect those rights.”

The following year, the U.S. Congress passed the Bill of Rights, along with a resolution instructing President George Washington to send a copy of the Bill of Rights to each of the 11 states, along with North Carolina and Rhode Island. North Carolina subsequently held a second constitutional convention and ratified the Constitution, becoming the 12th state in the union.

Effect on major judicial decisions today

While declining to go into detail about how he would have ruled in the cases, Newby argued those events in the late 1780s framed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to strike down most of the Arizona immigration law and uphold the Affordable Care Act, which mandates that Americans either buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Citing the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people,” Newby said the power to control its borders is clearly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, although the healthcare ruling is not so clear-cut.

While the Constitution does grant Congress the power to tax and goes on to give the federal government the power to regulate commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the healthcare law based on the Commerce Clause, striking down that argument in a 5-4 vote.

Rather, the Supreme Court called the penalty required of uninsured Americans a tax and upheld the law based on Congress’s power to tax in a 5-4 vote, with the majority, including chief justice John Roberts, who proved to be the swing vote, writing, “The court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgement is reserved to the people.”

Meanwhile, the dissent was clear in its assertion that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to mandate that citizens buy anything.

“Some could argue it is a proper respect of separation of powers,” said Newby. “Others would argue that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Congress to go beyond the enumerated powers that are in this Constitution.”

Newby did say he felt U.S. President Barack Obama, who championed the healthcare law, with his public comments intimidated Roberts to a certain extent.

“I think it was unfortunate,” said Newby. “Certainly any President, any citizen has the right to comment on the ebb and flow of power among the branches. Nonetheless, I think when you’re President of the United States, you have to be more circumspect, particularly with a matter that is before the courts.

“We want the courts to a large degree to be independent and not to be influenced by the political ups and downs and peaks and valleys. The law needs to be consistent and predictable.”

Newby also took issue with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s assertion earlier this year that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and antiquated and that budding democracies should look to other examples when drafting their own constitutions.

“With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, shame on you,” said Newby. “We have the longest living republic in the history of the world. And quite frankly, when I want to emulate someone, I’m going to look for a long period of success. By God’s grace, that’s what we have, and Justice Ginsburg, there’s no improvement on that.”

Newby, of Raleigh, is running to retain the N.C. Supreme Court seat he’s held since 2004 against challenger Sam J. Ervin IV, of Morganton. Election day is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 6.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket funeral of fallen NC soldier

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 9, 2012

TJ Butler (Source: NC National Guard) 
TJ Butler (Source: NC National Guard)
Butler is pictured with his wife Holly and their son, Thomas Jefferson Butler V. (Source: Facebook) 
Butler, wife, son
Updated: Oct 06, 2012 10:33 PM EST
PENDER COUNTY, NC (WECT) – A controversial group known for traveling across America picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers will be rallying together following the death of a local man who was recently killed in action in Afghanistan. 

According to the Westboro Baptist Church's website, the group plans on picketing Thomas Jefferson Butler IV's funeral.

Butler, a Pender County native who was known by many as TJ, had only been in Afghanistan for a little more than two weeks when he was killed by a suicide bomber. Along with Butler, two other NC National Guard members were also killed.

The WBC's website reads the following, before proceeding to list the group of soldiers's funerals that will be picketed, including Butler's: "Thank God for 18 more dead troops. We are praying for 18,000 more. We will picket their funerals in their home towns in respectful and lawful proximity thereto."

Butler's funeral will be held at Andrew's Mortuary in Hampstead, but it has not yet been scheduled.
Some are organizing what they're calling a "Human Wall for our Fallen Hero" to counter the funeral picket, in which they hope that local church members and veterans will block the protest.

The WBC links the deaths of soldiers to what they call America's growing acceptance of gays.

However, a law signed by President Obama in August puts restrictions on protests of service member funerals so that the protestors have to stay at least 300 feet from military funerals, and they're prohibited from protesting two hours before or after a service.

Butler was 25. He leaves behind his wife and their 6-month-old baby. Butler went through the Pender County School system and graduated from Topsail High before going into the military. He graduated from Topsail High in 2006.

Despite the group's name, the WBC is not affiliated with or recognized as a Baptist church by other Baptist groups and conventions.

Obama loses lead on key voter issues: Security, economy.

Voters now give Mitt Romney the nod when it comes to handling national security, and he has recaptured a lead over President Obama when voters are asked who will do a better job on the economy — findings that spell bad news for the incumbent.

Little more than a week ago, heading into the first debate of the campaign season, Mr. Obama led on the economy and national security, as well as handling of energy, immigration and foreign affairs. In each of those categories he either topped or was just below the magic number of 50 percent support.

But that changed in the latest The Washington Times/Zogby Poll conducted by Zogby Analytics, released Monday, which gave Mr. Romney a 48 percent to 45 percent advantage on national security and a 50 percent to 44 percent advantage on jobs and the economy.

John Zogby, the pollster for the survey, said those two are “unarguably the two most significant issues” facing voters in this election, which helped propel Mr. Romney back into a tie with Mr. Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

Mr. Romney also made up ground on all three of the other issues surveyed, though Mr. Obama maintained a 50 percent to 44 percent lead on foreign affairs and a 48 percent to 41 percent lead on immigration policy.
The two men were virtually tied, however, on energy policy, 46 percent to 46 percent — a huge change from before the debate, when the president led 51 percent to 40 percent.

In the debate, Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of wasting taxpayer money on green energy projects such as Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy after taking more than a half-billion dollars in government loan guarantees.

“I had a friend who said, you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers,” Mr. Romney said. “This is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy-secure.”

Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama earmarked $90 billion in one year for green-energy subsidies. But Mr. Obama countered that Mr. Romney wanted to continue siphoning tax subsidies to oil-drilling companies, and said the time has come to cut those kinds of fossil-fuel companies off.

“Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production,” Mr. Obama said. “And oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.”
Indeed, voters seemed to side with Mr. Obama on that specific question.

The Times/Zogby Poll found 29 percent of likely voters wanted to cancel tax breaks for corporate jets and oil companies — the targets of Mr. Obama’s tax-raising plan — while 21 percent agreed with Mr. Romney that the green-energy tax breaks should be done away with.

Another 20 percent wanted to see both oil and green energy tax breaks canceled, and 17 percent — about evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and independents — said taxpayers should continue to subsidize both.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Here it is -- inside dope on Rouzer - McIntyre Debate #2. Decide which one you think is the dope. (I've already voted.)

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / October 8, 2012


On the Record

Congressman Mike McIntyre, a Democrat, and Republican rival David Rouzer both referenced their faith in God as they made opening remarks during this week's "On the Record" program.
From that point on, the two men spent much of their time on WRAL's weekly public affairs show repeatedly accusing each other of bearing false witness about the other's records.

"My faith has affected everything that I do," McIntyre said, making note of his participation in the Congressional Prayer Caucus. Meanwhile, Rouzer said "the Lord's given us an opportunity to make a real change for the betterment of our country with this election."

Host David Crabtree moderated what amounted to a debate between McIntyre, who is seeking his ninth term, and Rouzer, a two-term state senator hoping that newly redrawn district lines will allow him to win the seat for the GOP.

McIntyre and Rouzer share views on a number of issues, so much of the campaign has been focused on contrasting the two men's personalities and voting records. Politico says the race is the fifth most expensive congressional race in the country this year, and much of that money has been spent on intensely negative television spots. Those campaign ads, both from the candidates themselves and the national parties, have traded charges about being soft on immigration enforcement, favoring overseas outsourcing of jobs and threatening health care programs for the elderly.

Those same charges and the generally acrid campaign environment was on full display during the debate.
When asked after the debate if he believed Rouzer was intentionally misleading voters about his record, McIntyre said, "Absolutely." One of Rouzer's main lines of attack was that McIntyre voted more liberally than the conservative image he projects would lead voters to believe. Citing endorsements by the NRA, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other conservative groups, McIntyre says it is "materially dishonest" to suggest his voting record is as liberal as Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's.
"Come on, let's get real," McIntyre said.

For his part, Rouzer said after the debate that it was the Democrat who did not tell the whole truth. In one example, McIntyre suggested that Rouzer had been a lobbyist for Japan and had helped send American jobs overseas.

"Japan Tobacco is allowing farm families to stay on the farm," Rouzer said. "If he's going to say that I did work for Japan, he ought to be honest and say Japan Tobacco. That's different than saying I worked for Japan or am trying to take jobs away from this country."

Many of the accusations traded during the program were similar to aspersions cast in campaign ads. The following is a fact check of some of the most headed exchanges on this week's program.

McIntyre and Pelosi? 

"My opponent in this race has been in Congress for 16 years," Rouzer said during his opening statement. "During that time, we've accumulated $11 trillion more in debt. In addition to that, he voted four straight times for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker. And while she was speaker, he voted with her more than 90 percent of the time." Piling on the criticism, Rouzer touted his own sponsorship of a bill that restricts how and when state agencies can pass new rules. "While (McIntyre) has been in Congress, he's not been able to pass one bill of which he was the primary sponsor and gotten it signed into law."

Does McIntyre vote lockstep with Pelosi? 

Among conservatives, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi's name is a political epithet and saying someone votes like her 90 percent of the time is a lowdown thing to say. But is it true in McIntyre's case?
Up to a point.

After the debate, McIntyre said that Rouzer was being "mathematically misleading" because U.S. House speakers don't cast votes on all bills before the body. McIntyre suggested that Pelosi's votes that year were mainly procedural. By that measure, he said, even some hardcore Republicans would be labeled liberals. vetted a similar claim about members of Congress in 2010, and it did note that speakers limited their votes.

"By tradition, speakers don’t vote on everything. Pelosi largely limits her votes to substantive bills, skipping the less controversial or less important bills," fact checkers for the site wrote. That contradicts what McIntyre said regarding the importance of votes, but confirms his assertion about the math.

Other fact checkers have used Open to compare McIntyre's and Pelosi's voting records since 2007. That website calculates McIntyre votes for Pelosi 67 percent of the time, or roughly the same amount of time he votes with the majority of members in his party. It's also worth noting that National Journal's rankings of partisanship, which are based on selected votes, place McIntyre in the middle of both the liberal and conservative scales. From 2009 through 2010, his conservative ranking was actually slightly higher than his liberal ranking.

So it's true that McIntyre voted for Pelosi to be speaker, but the impression that he votes in lockstep with the Democratic leader is a mischaracterization of his record.

Is McIntyre's record light on accomplishments? 

The first thing to be said here is that comparing work in the state General Assembly and the U.S. Congress is not a fair comparison. While it is not easy to get a bill through either body, shoving legislation through the federal body is a far more difficult task. Seniority matters a lot in terms of whose name goes on a final bill. And frequently, Congress will roll a number of pieces of legislation into one bill so that the standalone measure doesn't pass.

So while it's true that none of the bills McIntyre filed as a primary sponsor has made it into law during the current session of Congress, the same can be said of other lawmakers, including Rep. Howard Coble, the longest-serving House Republican in North Carolina history.

McIntyre can point to having run some successful amendments to bills, some of them significant pieces of legislation. And when asked for his signature legislative accomplishment, McIntyre's chief of staff points to the tobacco buyout.

"After introducing a tobacco buyout bill in 2002, Mike worked in a bipartisan fashion with tobacco state congressional colleagues to pass this historic measure in 2004. The final bill, named the Jenkins-McIntyre bill, was a historic accomplishment that other lawmakers before had not been able to achieve," reads McIntyre's website. News reports from the time seem to validate this claim, noting McIntyre's part in pushing the buyout.

None of this says the McIntyre is the most powerful member of Congress. However, the claims that he has never gotten a bill for which he was the primary sponsor through Congress is true without being meaningful and does not give credit where it is due.

Health care

A question Crabtree asked about taxes and the economy quickly veered toward a discussion of the Affordable Care Act, the health care law pushed by President Barack Obama.

"Obamacare is a huge impediment to the economy," Rouzer said. "We need to repeal it."
On this point, he and McIntyre seem to agree. "I voted for repeal. I voted against it in the first place."
This glimmer of comity didn't last, as Crabtree asked about alternatives to the Affordable Care Act.
"(Rouzer's) alternative I don't think accurate describes what I would do," McIntyre said. "The first thing I would not do is turn Medicare into a voucher system. We've got to protect Medicare," McIntyre said. "The budget he supports would turn it into a voucher system and put your Medicare dollars you have earned at risk and take away your guaranteed economic benefits for your health care."

After a commercial break, Rouzer wheeled around the Medicare issue.
"All this nonsense of how we're going to add costs to seniors and Medicare is not true. If you do not make changes to Medicare goes bankrupt in 12 years. And that's their plan for Medicare," Rouzer said.
In response, McIntyre doubled down on the idea that Republican plans for Medicare would end guaranteed benefits.
"Plus," McIntyre said, "it costs seniors $6,400 more a year, money that many, many of our seniors do not have."
Rouzer shot back, "That's a lie, Congressman. That is a flat out lie....It does not affect one person who is 55 or older."

Would Republican plans end guaranteed benefits for Medicare? Would seniors really pay $6,400 more annually for health care? 

In a word, no. calls the claim "out of date," while PolitiFact rates it as "half true."  Both groups were vetting an Obama campaign claim very similar to what McIntyre said on air. Here's what PolitiFact said:
"The Obama ad would have been more accurate if it had specified that it was referring to a previous Ryan plan for Medicare rather than the current one. We simply don’t have enough details to know how much extra money seniors might have to pay under the current Ryan plan."

The same holds true for McIntyre's statement.
The bigger problem with much of the campaign discussion about Medicare – from McIntyre and others – is the inference that various plans would take benefits away from seniors. Virtually all political leaders working on this problem stay away from scenarios that change how benefits are administered for retirees already on the program. Rather, Ryan's plans and others change how those who have not retired yet would receive benefits. And as FactCheck notes about the latest version of the Ryan budget, "Ryan made his Medicare proposal considerably more generous when he unveiled a new budget plan in March for fiscal year 2013. A key difference is that the new Ryan plan wouldn’t force Julia and other future seniors to accept subsidized private insurance. The current plan allows her to choose “a traditional Medicare fee‐for‐service plan” if she prefers."

Stimulus and Death Taxes

"My opponent here voted for the failed Obama stimulus," Rouzer said during another exchange on the economy. "He voted to keep in place the death tax, which he fails to mention. "McIntyre said that's not true, telling Rouzer, "I sponsored getting rid of the death tax." Crabtree pressed Rouzer on his description of the stimulus. "Is there any way of knowing what would have happened had we not had the stimulus?" He asked. "How can you say it failed?"

Rouzer said lower taxes and less government spending creates jobs, not stimulus spending. "But how did it fail?" Crabtree asked. "It failed because it added to the debt," Rouzer said. "It failed because we're still in a recession. Have you seen any stimulus job growth? Absolutely not." 

Did McIntyre vote to continue inheritance taxes that fiscal conservatives refer to as "the death tax?"

Asked to back up this claim, Rouzer's campaign pointed to several bills, including H.R. 4151 in 2009. U.S. House records do show that McIntyre voted for Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009, which did lock in the current scheme of taxing assets when someone dies.
Republicans sent the following as part of summary for their members at the time:

H.R. 4154 would permanently extend the estate tax on assets transferred following a death at the current level. The legislation would exclude amounts up to $3.5 million and permanently set the tax, commonly referred to as the "death tax," rate at 45 percent. Under current law, the death tax is set to expire in 2010 and then go back into effect in 2011.
Under current law, the tax is set to expire on January 1, 2010, and then come back in 2011, with an exemption of $1 million and a rate of 55 percent. According to reports, H.R. 4154 would reduce revenues by $234 billion over the next ten years by raising the exemption and lowering the tax rate scheduled to take effect under current law. 

So while the bill extended what had been the current law, it would have averted the return of the death tax in 2011 in a form that would have targeted more families. The bill McIntyre supported would have collected $234 billion from estates over 10 years.

For someone who would rather see the estate tax phased out, this vote puts you between a rock and a hard place. Voting against the 2009 bill would have allowed the tax to expire for one year, but it would have returned all the stronger two years later. In the alternative, voting for the bill, as McIntyre did, meant you were trading continuation of the tax for ensuring that threshold for taxing estates didn't get lowered.
This is another case where Rouzer's statement is factually accurate but may not tell the entire tale.
McIntyre's retort to Rouzer was that he had sponsored legislation to phase out the "death tax." Asked to back up this claim, McIntyre's campaign sent a list of 12 bills filed over the past 16 years, including four in the current Congress, for which McIntyre had been a co-sponsor.

Did the stimulus fail to create jobs? And did Rouzer balance the state budget? 

Writers for the Washington Post, Politico, Slate CNN and all say that the claim the stimulus created no jobs is spurious. Yes, it added to the debt. Whether the United States is in a recession or not, that's a question for economists to argue over. The technical definition of a recession is "two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's gross domestic product." By that measure, the U.S. is not currently in a recession. Others define the term more broadly, so Rouzer gets a pass on that one.

One final note: Rouzer claims that he, or at least his Republican colleagues, balanced the state budget. That's true and it's a claim that North Carolina politicians – Republicans and Democrats – have used for decades. It's also no measure of a politician's fiscal prudence, since the state constitution requires that the General Assembly create a balanced budget. Unlike the federal government, North Carolina is not allowed to borrow in order to balance its books.


Both McIntyre and Rouzer say they oppose the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought here while they were children. But each accuses the other of being soft on immigration policy.

"Those who break the law should not be rewarded. And that's why it's interesting my opponent, as a lobbyist, has lobbied for illegal immigrants," McIntyre said. Illegal immigration, he said, costs the state billions of dollars for health care, education and law enforcement. "I have an opponent who has advocated for amnesty for illegal immigrants, including those who committed a crime."

Rouzer shot back, "I'm not the one who has been in Congress and has voted for amnesty. You did in 1997."
That's not true, McInyre said. "That bill he's talking about was for high-skilled tech workers in the Research Triangle Park," McIntyre said, trailing off enough that Rouzer could jump in and appear to finish his sentence.
"That allowed for adjustment of status for those who applied by a certain time," Rouzer said of the 1997 bill.

Did McIntyre vote for immigration amnesty?
In 1997, McIntyre voted against a motion that would have told House conferees to reject a Senate measure extending the 245(i) program. In an e-mail, immigration lawyer Elissa Taub explained, "245(i) was a program that was created to allow individuals who were unlawfully present in the U.S. (either because they entered without inspection or overstayed a valid visa) to obtain green cards (permanent residence." In other words, those were not people who sneaked across the border, but came here legally and allowed their paperwork to expire.

Whether that is considered "amnesty" may be a matter of semantics. However, McIntyre's vote for the bill did not stop the anti-illegal-immigration group ALIPAC from endorsing him. However, Taub said McIntyre's explanation for backing the bill didn't completely wash. She wrote, "245(i) was not specifically enacted to cover highly skilled workers, although highly skilled workers are eligible to take advantage of the program. If it was the Congressman’s aim to benefit a certain group of highly skilled workers who could benefit, then his aim was not incorrect, but that wasn’t the sole or even a primary reason for the legislation."

I asked McIntyre's chief of staff, Lachlan McIntosh to clarify the congressman's remark. He wrote:

"High skilled workers are necessary to fuel the growth and innovation in the pharmaceutical, software, information technology and biotechnology industries in North Carolina’s Research Triangle. Section 245(i) allowed companies in the Research Triangle to hire high skill employees that needed to adjust their status as H1-B visa holders. An H1-B visa is a "non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields such as in architecture, engineering, mathematics, science, and medicine." Under the visa program, an American company can employ a foreign worker a maximum of six years.
"This legislation, from 1997, wasn't about amnesty. And it passed 288-183. Several NC Republicans voted for including Burr, Coble and Myrick."

Rouzer can certainly point to this measure as giving some leniency to those who violated certain immigration laws. The bigger question may be how strict is strict enough.

Did Rouzer lobby on behalf of illegal immigrants? 
McIntyre's counter-charge against Rouzer was first made during the Republican primary by Ilario Pantano, who said Rouzer "advocated amnesty for illegal aliens" during the 2007 Agricultural Jobs Act.
Rouzer says he did, in fact, lobby for that bill and did so at the request of farmers.

Like the 1997 bill McIntyre voted for, this measure allowed for workers that support a key North Carolina industry – in this case farming – to remain in the United States as long as they were still working.

Again, whether one considers this an amnesty bill might be a matter of perspective. During a spring debate against Pantano on a WECT-produced debate, Rouzer said, "This isn't a black or white issue, but there is a path forward ... The path forward is to take those who are working, and let them continue to work. Then it's much easier to identify those who are not here for the right reasons, who are causing trouble, who are driving drunk, and deport them immediately." In some ways, that sounds very close to what McIntyre had to say about the 245(i) bill.

Was Rouzer a lobbyist for "a foreign country?"
Crabtree asked about charges the pair had traded over Rouzer's lobbying work and whether either one is responsible for shipping jobs overseas. Both men, Crabtree pointed out, have been supportive of North Carolina farm exports.

"That's a different situation than lobbying for a foreign country, for their agenda, instead of for the agenda of our American farmers," McIntyre said.

But Rouzer said his overseas lobbying work was on behalf of farmers. "Yes, I have done work for Japan Tobacco. But guess what? Japan Tobacco is the No. 1 buyer - foreign buyer - of U.S. Tobacco. I'm not apologizing for that. For you to put in an ad that I was a lobbyist for Japan is 100 percent factually untrue."
Half of Japan Tobacco is owned by Japan's ministry of finance. The government recently sold off a chunk of its stake in the company to help pay for earthquake recovery.

According to business news services such as Bloomberg and Hoovers, the company is profitable and acts as a corporation rather than an arm of the Japanese government. However, until this year, most of the company's top leadership was made up of former Japanese bureaucrats.

Japan Tobacco Inc. acquired the non-U.S. operations of tobacco company R.J. Reynolds in 1999 to form the current iteration of JTI.

So the company definitely has strong ties to the Japanese government. However, to call Rouzer a lobbyist for Japan is a stretch. And it's not clear what lobbying position Rouzer might have advocaed for that would have hurt the interest of U.S. farmers.