North Carolina Should Have a Choice

Veteran Legislator who first brought the Spotlight on former NC House Speaker and federal felon Jim Black, a hidden budget for state government, off-the-books liability for state employee retirement, unconstitutional bonded indebtedness, Senator Fern Shubert wants North Carolina voters to have a real choice, when America picks a president or a General Assembly. Having served in both the N.C. House and Senate, she works as an accountant in and around Marshville, North Carolina - among the fastest growing regions of the fastest growing state in the Union.

McCain's Straight Lies

"Super Tuesday may be the voters' last chance to bring the so-called "straight talk express" to a screeching halt."

We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives "straight talk" and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the "straight talk express." But endless repetition does not make something true.

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies -- and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Even the Washington Post, which supports McCain, said that the Senator "has distorted the meaning" of what Governor Romney said, that Romney "has never proposed setting 'a date for withdrawal.'"

During Mitt Romney's ABC News interview that Senator McCain twisted, Governor Romney was asked by the interviewer whether he agreed with President Bush's veto of Congressional legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, and whether Romney as President would veto similar legislation.

"Of course," was Romney's reply. There was no ambiguity.

Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night's debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny," when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.

When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services. [NOTE: Sowell served as a Marine.]

The Presidency is a heavy responsibility for the future of the nation, including generations yet unborn. Character and integrity are major qualifications.

The passing years and a friendly media have allowed Senator McCain's shortcomings in the character and integrity department to fade into the background.

McCain was one of "the Keating five" -- Senators who used their influence to try to protect a failing savings & loan company, which also became the subject of a corruption investigation.

During the 2000 primaries, the Associated Press reported Senator McCain's joking about people with Alzheimer's.

This went beyond bad taste because (1) it was known at the time that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's and (2) the media to whom McCain was pandering hated Ronald Reagan.

It is especially ironic now to see McCain wrapping himself in the mantle of President Reagan.

With the momentum of his Florida primary win behind him, going into the "Super Tuesday" primaries, John McCain has now been restored to the position of front runner that the media gave him at the outset.

Other Republicans are jumping on his bandwagon. This may have less to do with McCain's own qualities than with the prospect of getting Cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments as rewards for their political support.

It may all look like a done deal. But the McCain-Kennedy bill giving amnesty to illegal aliens looked like a done deal two years ago -- until the public realized the truth behind the spin and brought that sell-out to a screeching halt.

Super Tuesday may be the voters' last chance to bring the so-called "straight talk express" to a screeching halt.

It should be called the "sell-out express" because McCain has sold out not only with amnesty for illegal aliens but also sold out the First Amendment with the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill that was supposed to take big money out of political campaigns, but blatantly has not.

McCain also sold out on judicial nominations by making his own side deal with the Democrats, undercutting Republican attempts to stop Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees instead of voting them up or down.

This is quite a record for someone running as a straight talker.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

When Dr. Sowell Speaks....

Dr. Thomas Sowell on McCain

Sowell, as you may know, is one of my favorite authors. It is interesting to see how the DemocratLite wing of the Republican Party, the Rockefeller Republicans as they were once known, are lining up behind McCain.

Since I expect the current banking fraud scandal to make the S&L/Keating 5 scandal look mild, having him at the head of the ticket is a losers bet. When Ann Coulter says she'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain, it should give the Bush-boys backing McCain pause, because a lot of people feel the same way. The power before principle "leaders" may take the lemmings over a cliff, but I'm with Peggy Noonan and tired of making excuses for economic policies that promote dishonesty rather than integrity.

As Christopher Ruddy said, "Some pundits suggest that GOP voters will rally around McCain no matter what — even if a “ham sandwich” were running against Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic opponent. "I strongly disagree with this sentiment. After eight years of being disappointed by the Bush administration, Reagan Republicans are likely to vote their conscience this year rather than the party line.

"John McCain needs to give them some really good reasons to make them think twice. Hillary won’t be reason enough."There's too much fraud, fed and financial malfeasance behind the current bubble bust to get behind a candidate so closely tied to the Bush machine. If the Republicans do, I think they'll regret it.

You've probably seen this. Dodson isn't seeking political power; notice how those who are, though they claim to be "leaders," are willing to follow anyone who says what they want to hear if they think he may win.

Dr. Dobson: I Will Never Vote for McCain

February 1, 2008 12:07 PM

While John McCain has risen to the top of the heap among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson remains adamant that he will not support McCain’s bid for the White House.

Dobson, one of the nation’s most influential evangelical Christians, declared more than a year ago that he wouldn't support McCain under any circumstances, saying McCain didn't support traditional marriage values.

A Dobson spokesman told the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick Wednesday that he stood by that position, and as a matter of conscience could never vote for the Arizona Senator.

According to the paper, Dobson is joined by a slew of other prominent conservatives who oppose McCain on a number of issues:

• Talk radio host Mark Levin urged visitors to the National Review’s Web site to “rally for Romney” to ward off a McCain win, saying: “Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.”
• Talker Rush Limbaugh told listeners on Thursday: “McCain is in a lot of these places not actually the Republican candidate. He is the candidate of enough Republicans, but [also] independents and moderates and probably even some liberals.”
• Pat Toomey, president of the anti-tax organization Club for Growth, said in comments reported by the New York Times: “I have yet to see McCain make any attempts to reach out to free market conservatives.”

Conservatives fault McCain for voting against President Bush’s tax cuts and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and for supporting embryonic stem cell research, looser immigration rules and stricter environmental regulations.

Conservatives were particularly irked when McCain made a deal with Democrats to break a deadlock on judicial nominations, according to the Times.

Anger over that compromise was rekindled this week when Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund wrote that McCain had privately criticized Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” The McCain campaign denied that report.

Following McCain successes in early primary states, however, other conservatives are beginning to warm up to his campaign:

• Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who previously opposed a McCain nomination, said: “He has moved in the right direction strongly and forcefully on taxes.”
• Former McCain foe Tony Perkins, a prominent Christian conservative, told the Times: “I have no residual issue with John McCain,” adding the candidate needed to “better communicate” his stand on social issues.
• Richard Land, an official with the South Baptist Convention, agreed, noting that McCain “is strongly pro-life.” He said: “When I hear Rush Limbaugh say that a McCain nomination would destroy the Republican Party, what I want to say to Rush is, ‘You need to get out of the studio more and talk to real people.’”

Fern Shubert, CPA - Marshville, North Carolina

Fern's Real World Business

Fern Shubert, CPA
106 E Main Street
Marshville, NC 28103

Meet the New Boss (Same as the Old Boss)

Raleigh- When the Who sang "Won't Get Fooled Again," they probably weren't thinking about the Charlotte Observer. Reading the Observer's editorial (March 5, 2007) that begins by saying new House Speaker Joe Hackney "has done more to improve election campaigns, regulate lobbyists and raise ethical standards than anyone else in the 120-member House" certainly made me think about the Who's song. I hope the Observer doesn't fool the public into believing Jim Black's corruption was unique or unknown or that Hackney was anything other than Black's loyal follower to the very end.

The editorial particularly reminded me of the closing line to the song, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The rules debate in the House made it clear to anyone who heard it that the majority of House members have no intention of doing anything substantively different. In their view, the only thing Jim Black did wrong was getting caught. They will try to avoid being exposed by the feds, but they won't change the rules to limit the power that leads to corruption.

Similarly, judging from the press reports of the debate, it seems the chance of malfeasance being reported by the capitol press corpse, absent some outside intervention, is still nil, so the corruption can be expected to continue to grow unless the feds weed it out. (By the way, the use of corpse instead of corps is not a typo. I recently saw a Paul O'Connor article from a few years ago (posted in the press room at the legislature, no less) that used that spelling, and it just seemed appropriate. If, in the future, I call them the press corpse instead of corps, it may not be an accident.)

The Observer's coverage of the rules debate continued their habit of leaving out the information that would permit the public to actually understand what was being debated. For example, they said "Hackney's rules would also eliminate the right of a handful of House members to sit on any committee to help push through legislation." In other words, the new rules eliminate using floaters to ensure the Democratic leaders have enough of a margin to get whatever they want through a committee.

This may be progress, but thanks to Black's malfeasance and Democratic gerrymandering, the Democratic margin in the House is so great that they don't need floaters to get whatever they want through a committee. In other words, they gave up something useless. Big deal.

The Observer did admit that "The changes, written by the Democratic majority with input from Republican leaders, didn't satisfy some GOP members who said the rules fail to prevent a future speaker from having too much power or blocking the will of the majority in the chamber," but by leaving out the details, the complaint sounded weak and partisan. Republican leaders may have provided input, but the Democratic insiders omitted anything that would seriously limit the unbridled power of the Speaker and his buddies.

In fact, it was sad but funny to hear the Republican Minority leader point out that the chief problem with the rules was not that they hinder the minority, but that they are designed to prevent the majority from doing anything contrary to the will of the insiders in leadership positions. He didn't say it, but the public should know that almost without exception (and I can't think of an exception, right off hand), all of the current House leaders were loyal followers of Black until the feds got on his case.

As Stam said, "While one of my jobs is to stand up for the rights of the minority party, my bone to pick with these rules is the way they depreciate the will of the majority." Black had power and he sold it; clearly, leaving so much power in the hands of a few is an invitation to malfeasance. But Black's gang has a new leader, so why make changes?

Several amendments were offered, and if the Democratic leaders had any fear of real reporting in the major papers, they would have accepted at least one because it so clearly exposed the Animal Farm nature of politics in the North Carolina House. (You remember George Orwell's classic, in which all the animals were equal, but some were more equal than others?)

John Blust, who is far more deserving of recognition than Hackney when it comes to real reform, (as opposed to campaign finance reforms designed to increase the power of the press by hampering the ability of others to offer information), offered an amendment that would have required the Speaker to follow the rules in directing the business of the body. All of the members of the Speaker's gang of loyal supporters voted in support of the right of the Speaker to ignore the rules, apparently agreeing that he should be "above the law."

Of course, I don't really see any point in having rules, since they are ignored whenever they get in the way of the will of the Speaker and his friends. Why have rules when they can be ignored at will? The main purpose seems to be to deceive the public into believing all is well when the old adage that "Power corrupts" is so clearly playing out in Raleigh.

Blust was criticized for making his attempt to move the House away from banana republic governance, but he didn't back down. When Democratic leaders suggested Hackney was so wonderful that Blust's rules changes were not needed, Blust said ""If it's going to be real change, then why won't we put it in writing? . . .Why won't we put it in the rules? I'd like to take the gentleman at his word, but let me explain it this way: If you've had a house broken into, and a couple days later, the police caught the person who did it, you wouldn't say, 'Great. Now it won't happen again. Now I can sit back and do what I always did, and my house won't be broken into again.'

"No, you get a dog, you get floodlights, you get deadbolt locks for the doors, you get special locks for the windows, you form a neighborhood watch committee, you get an alarm system. You would do something to put in place some safeguards so that it can't happen again. That's all we're asking for."

In other words, when you catch one member of a gang, it doesn't mean you're safe from the rest of the gang. As a recent NCGOP press release stated, "no high level North Carolina Democrat leader can rightfully take the high ground on corruption since many may have directly or indirectly benefited or in effect turned a "blind eye" to what may have been obvious or accepted behavior to maintain the Democrat Party's corruptive reign of power." Every Democrat in the legislature profited from Black's foul deeds, and so did many Republicans. It is hardly surprising that those who profited from Black's actions want to protect their gains.

It is unfortunate that the press sees no problem with praising those who profited by looking the other way when Black was pulling off the theft of the century and stealing control of the North Carolina House. Of course, I guess telling the truth now would reveal how little truth they've told in the last ten years.

Fern Shubert on "North American Union"

Former North Carolina GOP gubernatorial contender and state Senator Fern Shubert on the North American Union. July 25, 2007

Fern Shubert's Foresight

by John Barker

Writers seldom want to write about other writers (it's an ego thing). But today I want to write about a fellow columnist, former Senator Fern Shubert. Most people who read my column also know Senator Shubert's work but may not remember her campaign for governor in 2004. The central issue in her primary is the reason I am writing this column.

Read the Column about who started the National Debate on
Drivers Licenses for Illegal Aliens
The Conservative Voice

Fern Shubert Bio from NCSpin - 2003

Senator Fern Shubert of Marshville (Union County), NC, will seek to be the first female Governor of North Carolina, focusing her campaign on jobs, education, and transportation. Sen. Shubert believes she is the candidate that can do the best job in bringing jobs to this state and is the only Republican candidate that can defeat Mike Easley.

Sen. Shubert states experience as a CPA and a legislator has given her the knowledge needed to pull the state out of the financial crisis into which the current leadership has led us. Shubert has served three terms as a Representative (1994, 1996, 2000) in the NC General Assembly. In 2002 she was elected to represent District 35 in the Senate and her Senate peers elected her to be the Senate Republican Whip, a significant honor that recognized her many achievements in the House.

"I want to be your Governor because I want to make things better for all the people of North Carolina. Most people know that if you keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, you're probably crazy. I believe most North Carolinians have figured out that they want different results from those they've seen under Mike Easley. When it comes to jobs, education, and roads, there is no doubt that we can do better. I am the candidate with the experience, vision, and conservative values to lead North Carolina citizens as we build a better future," Fern said. Information on Shubert's campaign can be found by going to www.ForFern.com. Fern urges everyone to compare her record on making positive changes that benefit the people of North Carolina with that of the other candidates.

Fern is married to Jerry J. Shubert, a retired Air Force Lt. Col., and together they have a son Lee R. Shubert. Fern has a stepdaughter Dr. Tamara Shubert Hayward, and two grandchildren. Sen. Shubert's father was born in Waxhaw, NC; her mother, in Wingate, NC. Fern's family ties to this area go back before the Revolution. Fern graduated from Duke University in 1969, passing the CPA exam before graduating. Sen. Shubert has won awards and recognition for helping small businesses and education. In 1996 NCEITA gave her the first award for government service it ever gave a Representative. The US Small Business Administration recognized her as the Accountant who did the most for small business in the nation in 1997. The Charlotte Christian News said her alternative certification legislation was the most important education development of 1998. And this year, she succeeded in ending the use of portfolios for teacher certification, despite Governor Easley's veto of her bill.