I was shocked to discover that Grass Roots North Carolina would “recommend” a political neophyte whose support for the Second Amendment is limited to recent statements of support.
Andy Stevens, apparently a GRNC official, first states that GRNC doesn’t make endorsements. While factually correct, that is a bit of a dodge. Like the NRA, GRNC has a separate organization, GRNC-PVF, that makes “recommendations”.
Stevens declined to explain why GRNC-PVF made the recommendation they did, or explain the difference between a “recommendation” and an “endorsement”.
When a supposedly credible gun rights organization makes a “recommendation” like this, it has to make thinking people wonder why.
I sense a significant amount of anger in our online discussions.
While I feel that much of it is justified, we all need to make sure it is kept under control.
On Tuesday evening, we saw an object example of anger out of control. Fortunately, it wasn’t one of us providing the example, it was one of the Commissioners.
For any of us to go down that road can only hurt our cause.
I would further remind everyone that is was not realistic to expect that on Tuesday night there would have been significant action on our cause. Things just don’t work that way, and for good reason.
It is therefore premature at this point for us to speak against any of the Commissioners, or all of them, for inaction on our issue.
One or two may be deserving of criticism for their actions. If we’re going to focus energy against someone, let it be them. Even then we must be careful and recognize how our actions will be seen by others, particularly those who don’t yet agree with us. We don’t want to wind up looking like that Commissioner.
We are engaged in a process that will likely take a few months to conclude. We must remain engaged, calm, respectable, respectful, and legal if we wish to prevail.
Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.
I have had some time to organize my thoughts since last Tuesday’s meeting of the Haywood County Commission and our progress to date, and would like to share them with you. These are my thoughts and mine alone. No one is asked to agree with me, nor am I attempting to tell others what they should think. I welcome reasoned and respectful discussion with anyone regarding the following.
Did We Succeed?
My answer would be an unqualified “yes”. My hope for Tuesday’s meeting was that we get the attention of the Commissioners, and we clearly did that. I am sure that some of you hoped for more, which leads me to my next topic…
I am pretty sure that except in the case of emergency, the Commission cannot act on an item that is not on the agenda. While we might find this frustrating, it really is for our protection. We must be told in advance of actions the Commissioners plan to take, so that we can participate in the process and make our voices heard before action is taken. For this reason, I didn’t expect we’d get a resolution passed last Tuesday night.
Having watched the Commission act on other issues in the past, I would expect the issue to be discussed at two or three Commission meetings before significant action is taken. Hopefully, the Commission might restrict action on our issue to their evening meetings, so that more of us can attend and be heard.
In any case, it is a process that doesn’t happen quickly. If we are to prevail, we must remain engaged.
What would a resolution do?
That depends on just how it is worded. It might be purely symbolic, and affirm the Second Amendment rights of the people of Haywood County.
Other counties have gone further, stating in their resolutions that no county resources shall be used to abridge the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
Ours might turn out like one of the two above, or somewhere in between. Or we might not get one at all. But we get nothing if we give up.
If we get a resolution, even if it merely symbolic, it sends a message to Raleigh that is helpful to legislators sympathetic to our cause.
General observation: There seems to a disconnect in some cases between the statements of Commissioners published in Smoky Mountain News on January 7 and their positions stated at the Commission meeting on Tuesday. My overall feeling is that they want us to think they have been working on this issue, but I see little evidence that is in fact the case. Had they indeed been working on the issue, I suspect they would have answered differently when asked specifically about the Second Amendment Sanctuary issue.
Here are my observations on the Commissioners, with the most favorable ones first and least favorable ones last.
Commissioner Rogers had the most clear and concise comments on the issue at the January 21 meeting. I believe he merely chose poorly when answering the question posed by Smoky Mountain News, by not being specific enough. It is clear to me that Commissioner Rogers supports some sort of resolution, whether specific to our Second Amendment rights, or more general and covering all of our Constitutional rights.
Commissioner Long opined that it might be best to draft a resolution affirming all of the Constitutional Rights of the people of Haywood County, rather than just Second Amendment rights. He seems to have a good rationale in support of this, and it appeared that Commissioner Rogers agreed with him. Sadly Commissioner Long spoke for so long that by the time he was done it was hard to tell exactly where he stood.
I am surprised to be placing Commissioner Kirkpatrick at the middle of the pack. He promised to carefully consider the issue, which is really all that any of us can expect. Additionally, I found his comments regarding the societal conditions that cause us to seek a Second Amendment Sanctuary to be insightful.
Had it not been for the performance of the next person on this list, Chairman Ensley would have wound up at the bottom of the list. He insulted the majority of attendees by claiming that we were there because of “fake news” we had seen on Facebook. And yet he claims he doesn’t even use Facebook! So how could he possibly know what we might have seen there?
Chairman Ensley also presumed to tell us how we should best spend our energies protecting our Second Amendment rights. I am a NRA Life Member and support the NRA to the extent that I can, but they aren’t the only game in town. And I know that when it comes to influencing local government, a group of dedicated citizens is far more powerful than any national organization.
This is the hardest part of this article to write, because it’s already raising my blood pressure, and I want to keep this objective and professional.
In my opinion, Commissioner Pless made a huge mistake by reacting with such anger and by saying things like “I didn’t sign up for this”. Yes sir, you did. If you can’t handle a persistent activist constituent without losing your cool, perhaps you shouldn’t be in office.
If Commissioner Pless, in his heart of hearts, knows that it was wrong to have sent that email, he would have, in my opinion, been better served by saying: “it was wrong of me to send that email, and I apologize”. He would have earned some respect from me, and I suspect also from quite a few others.
If Commissioner Pless thinks it was right to send that email, then in my opinion he is not suited for public office, and should resign his seat.
In any case, I found Commissioner Pless’s demonstrated anger to be completely inappropriate for a public official at any level of government. Video of his comments regarding his email to Eddie Cabe can be seen at the end of this post.
Commissioner Pless, like Chairman Ensley, also insulted most attendees by claiming that we were only there because we had been lied to, on Facebook and elsewhere. I found that highly offensive. As a Facebook user, Commissioner Pless has far less excuse for making such and absurd claim.
Yes, I spent a lot of effort getting people to show up at the January 21 meeting, as did many others. I didn’t tell anyone that the Haywood County Commission wanted to take our guns, and I know of no one else who did so.
To use a military analogy, we haven’t yet won the war, but we did very well in the first battle.
Effort and engagement on our part does not guarantee success. Nothing will. But disengagement and lack of effort does guarantee failure.
Commissioner Pless explains his email suggesting that a citizen move to another county.
In the interest of keeping things honest, and not dishonestly inflating apparent support, please do not sign this online petition if you have signed a paper petition or if you are certain to attend the County Commission meeting on January 21 at 5:30 PM.
Please pay attention to the first field of the form below. I failed to do so when testing the form, and was recorded in the database as “Ms. Paul Yeager”. Just click on that field, and select the appropriate term.
Sue Googe, patriot activist and former candidate for United States Congress from the Fourth District in North Carolina, will address the Haywood Republican Alliance monthly social on Tuesday, January 23 at 6 PM, preceded by a pot luck dinner at 5:30. All interested persons are invited to attend.
One of the themes on which Sue is expected to speak is “Say No to Political Correctness”.
Born into extreme poverty in communist China, Sue spent her childhood in the remote mountain region of Hainan Island, far from civilization and without running water or electricity.
Sue’s grandfather had served as a military leader in the war against the communist party in the late 1940’s. After losing a bloody civil war, the communist party executed her grandfather and many other male members of the family before confiscating her grandfather’s property, leaving her family with nothing.
Sue learned firsthand that allowing a national government to consolidate power over the economy and the lives of the citizens will lead to violence, oppression, and poverty.
Sue’s childhood days were filled with hard labor and daily struggle, but as a young girl Sue began to show a talent for reading and writing poetry. Her parents were illiterate but they held education in high regard. So, with the help of a family friend, Sue was sent to a local boarding school at the age of 11 where she had to learn to manage her life and her finances on her own.
At the age of 20, Sue was given the opportunity to move to the mainland to take her first job in the manufacturing industry as an accountant. In 1998, at the age of 26, Sue moved to the United States on a student visa where she studied Computer Science at Wake Tech Community College from 1998-2000.
In 2000, Sue began working in the information technology industry, as a software engineering contractor, while she continued her education at UNC-Chapel Hill, where she studied Information and Library Science from 2001-2005.
By the Fall of 2005, Sue’s dream of becoming an American citizen became a reality and in 2010, as she continued her work in the IT industry, she founded a real estate investment company in Cary.
Sue and her husband of 16 years have been residents of Wake County for nearly two decades. They both enjoy traveling, boating, and flying airplanes. Sue also loves to ride horses and spending time outdoors.
She feels blessed to have had the opportunity to pursue her dreams and live her American Dream and she is committed to fighting the corruption and cronyism in our political system, which is threatening the very foundation of our nation’s prosperity and opportunity for all.
Sue wants to be a new voice, for a new generation, to ensure that the American Dream is alive and thriving for all Americans.
Haywood Republican Alliance is located in Walnut Plaza at 377 Walnut Street, Waynesville NC 28786, next to All About You Salon and Spa.
Recently, the “Haywood Five” were tried on charges of “party disloyalty” by the North Carolina Republican Party’s Executive Committee. Two of the “Haywood Five” were present at the trial, three were tried in absentia.
Surely, many of the Executive Committee members left convinced that the “Haywood Five” received a fair trial. Was this in fact the case?
In a fair trial, the accused is provided adequate notice and opportunity to formulate and present a defense. While the members of the “Haywood Five” were notified well in advance of the time and place of the trial, they were not informed of the evidence against them until two days before the trial. This is significant, particularly for those who could not attend.
In a fair trial, there is discussion of whether or not the actions of the accused in fact violate a rule or law. This important detail was given scant attention during the proceedings. A definition was presented as part of the prosecution’s case:
Any registered Republican attempting to influence or influencing the outcome of any election against a Republican candidate of Republican endorsed by the appropriate Republican Executive Committee or Legislative Caucus, other than by supporting an opposing Republican Candidate in a Republican primary…
…but there was no discussion regarding whether or not the actions of the “Haywood Five” constituted “attempting to influence or influencing the outcome of an election”. There is further discussion of this question in this article.
Further on in the prosecution’s presentation it is stated:
In this instance, your State Party has received two resolutions concerning the same five individuals. These resolutions come from the Haywood County Executive Committee, and the Eleventh Congressional District Executive Committee.
While the statement above is indeed factual, it leaves out some very important detail. In both cases, no evidence against the accused was actually presented. In the case of the Eleventh Congressional District’s resolution, approval was by vote via mail, without opportunity for discussion by the body.
Next, we come to the issue of who prosecuted the case. NCGOP General Counsel Tom Stark acted as “case manager”, presenting the case against the accused. This creates a strong impression that NCGOP supports the charges against the accused. That is hardly impartial. Challenges to the propriety of this fell on deaf ears.
That NCGOP would be less than impartial should be no surprise to anyone, as they have allowed (if not encouraged) this travesty to continue for months without once seeking to hear the accused’s side of the story.
Finally, we come to the most fundamental issue raised by the “trial” of the “Haywood Five” – Does a registered Republican not have the right to call out Republican candidates or office holders for failing to uphold the party platform? Statements against one particular Haywood County Commissioner constituted the bulk of the evidence presented against members of the Haywood Five. As pointed out by a local journalist, this sounds more like what one might expect from the Communist Party.
Were the “Haywood Five” given ample opportunity to present a defense?
Was the issue of whether or not the actions of the “Haywood Five” in fact constitute “party disloyalty” adequately discussed?
Was it proper for NCGOP to act based on two resolutions that were passed based on mere allegations with no presentation of supporting evidence?
Was it fair for NCGOP to put the weight of it’s entire organization behind prosecuting these allegations, without first even asking for the other side of the story?
Does every American not have the right to speak out against public officials that misuse the public trust?
Here is Ryan Bundy’s opening statement that was delivered to the jury in the Bundy Ranch trials on November 15, 2017. I doubt you will see this in the mainstream media. Read and remember.
Thanks to the jurors for being here. I told you a little about myself at voir dire, but I’d like to introduce myself a little more, and tell you about my heritage and how that affects my case. (Projects a picture of his family – AND leaves it up throughout his statement!) [Note: the picture shown above.]
This is my ID! Not my driver’s license. This is who I am, a man with a family and I’ll do whatever it takes to provide for them. I want you to picture in your minds…you’re out on the land… I’ll take you to our ranch, you can see all the beauty of the land, the fresh air, sunsets and sunrises, the brush, you’re on a horse in front of the cattle – place yourself there – feel the freedom – out of the congestion of the cars – that’s how I was raised, playing in the river, we were called river-rats and that is where my life began and I hope ends.
My family has been on that land 141 years, my pioneer ancestors settled there in 1877 – there was nothing there. They carved out a living… they brought a horse and wagon and some provisions… this case, the government mentioned is “not about rights”, but it is – those rights do mean something – rights are created through beneficial use. When my ancestors arrived, undoubtedly the horse would need a drink, so they led him to the water and that is beneficial use. The horse and perhaps a cow that had been led behind the wagon need to eat some brush in the hills, that is beneficial use. That established rights. The water rights are real! So real, the State of Nevada has a water rights registry including livestock watering rights. A law was created to protect those rights. The water rights that my father owns were first registered in 1891 by the State of Nevada – the State of Nevada is important, a sovereign state, its own unit, which entered the union in 1864. It entered equal to the original states, it is its own entity and state laws are important.
My family and I are charged with some grievous things and they are not true and evidence will show they are not; force, manipulation, extortion, violent—my family is not a violent family and I am not a violent man. For 20+ years we turned to local law enforcement. Rights are real property. The fact is that we create government to protect rights.
To have rights you must claim, use and defend… man only has rights he is willing to claim, use and defend. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Rights you own. Privilege is afforded. Like renting or owning a house. Government asserts there are no rights, only privileges and unless we pay, we can’t be there. The State of Nevada says differently. These are my father’s rights. Everything we have comes from the land. That is wealth, not the dollar bill. The things we use all come from the land. Who controls the land, controls the wealth.
We create government to preserve and serve us. These are some of the beliefs of my family. That we have said we will do whatever it takes to defend is not a threat, it is a statement. Being right here before you today is part of doing whatever it takes. The Founding Fathers pledged whatever it would take… their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, to defend rights. With the evidence you will see that is what we were doing; there was no conspiracy to impede, to harm… but, to protect our heritage that our pioneer ancestors established. We were attacked, surrounded by what appeared to be mercenaries, snipers pointed directly at me. You will hear a report from a sniper that he was keeping watch of me in my van, with my wife and two of my daughters with me.
Our ranch – children are always welcome – it is a place to play, play in the river, the pond, chase or hunt rabbits, burn your toes in the hot sand in summer—always free. Never before did we feel like someone was always watching. In early spring of 2014 we felt like someone was always watching… the dogs were watching the hills, when you are always with a dog you get to know what they are saying with their bark… you can tell by their bark what they are seeing… surveillance cameras on one hill, but the dog looking at another and growling… (tearfully) This is not what America is supposed to be. Supposed to be a land of liberty. The Founding Fathers fought and bled so we wouldn’t have to and now we find ourselves in a similar situation.
They say this issue is over grazing fees… it’s terrible, terrible, he must be a freeloader – it’s only rhetoric – I’ll tell you why – You don’t pay rent when you own your home! We own those rights! Not the land, I know we don’t own the land, but access…you and others have rights on that land. We own water and grazing rights. We don’t pay rent for something we own.
The BLM was formed in 1960. Our rights were established in 1877, long before BLM. The original states own 100% of their land and all states were to come in on equal footing. The crux of the issue is, are we a state or not? They say grazing is a privilege they can revoke and charge fees. If it is only a matter of money it is no problem. In fact, Mr. Whipple showed a copy of a check made out to Clark County. If the whole purpose is to show we owe a fee, then we’ll pay to the proper owner of the land. That was not the only check written to Clark County, we sent several. Also, in Clark County, there were 53 ranchers who owned rights. There is only a single one still out on the range. The BLM is not gaining revenue, it’s not important to them. My father could see they were there to manage him out of business. It’s not about grazing fees. In the BLM office there were signs that read: No more Moo by ‘92 and Cattle Free by ‘93! If it were only about the grazing fees, the fees would have been under $100,000 over 25 years. It is rumored, it may not be seen in evidence, but it is rumored that they spent $6 million on the operation. Who spends that and court costs rumored to be over $100 million to collect $100,000?
What is this about? The court orders. They say my father had an opportunity in the courts. The court wouldn’t consider states rights. They have forgotten they are servants of the people. We the people are the sovereign and ultimately, we the people are the government formed to meet needs that are better met by a group than by individuals. We are not slaves. We need to remember that. I think that’s forgotten. The definition of freedom is lost in America. When we have to have a license or ask permission to do everything, we are subjects.
Back to the charges – they claimed I went to Richfield and that the sheriff had to be called because we were causing such a ruckus—evidence will show otherwise—we boycott to influence to change ways – we protest to cause a change – these are first amendment rights – we do not get rights from the Bill of Rights – we have rights to begin with – it should be called the Prohibition of Government – we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, we can petition for a redress of grievances—rights we don’t want the government to mess with.
A redress is to find an answer, find a solution – one way to protest. The BLM put up first amendment zones – not much bigger than this courtroom – we called them pig pens – by creating that area, they were denying our right everywhere else – that’s what they used to arrest my brother – he was outside the pig pens. The first amendment has been protected over and over again in our history. There’s lots of media in the gallery today, they wouldn’t be happy to have their right to free speech taken. First amendment was put in the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution – they shall make no law restricting these things… as you saw in the video yesterday, my brother was not impeding, not blocking, he was on a state road, on its right-of-way, simply to take pictures with his ipad of them stealing our cattle – they attacked him, threw him to the ground, rubbed his face in the ground. (emotional) The American public saw this and came not to impede or do harm. They came because they felt the spirit of the Lord, spirit of freedom and felt “we the people are not going to put up with that behavior”. It was not pointed out there were snipers on the hill, I witnessed that through binoculars and the evidence will show this.
Back to Richfield, Utah, evidence and witness testimony will show there was not a ruckus there that disrupted or shut down that auction. I called the sheriff – that’s the pattern – the local law enforcement and state brand inspectors in Nevada, Arizona and Utah and I had contact with the highway patrol, county commissioners in several counties and state officials – not all face to face, but some through phone calls. Is this what a criminal does? No. We were there protecting life, liberty, property. You saw the video of them hip chucking my Aunt Margaret, 50+ years of and just finished with cancer treatments, the mother of 11 children. They call these BLM guys law enforcement, but they are just BLM employees. All authority comes from we the people, we delegate authority to the county sheriff who we elect and he hires deputies and we then have a sheriff’s department to protect our life, our liberty, our property. Choosing for yourself is freedom and we have no right to impede or harm others. That’s God’s law. Man-made law is to follow that. Man is supposed to be free, not controlled, serfs or slaves. Government is to be our servant. The government went in and shut down 600,000 acres – not one of us ever went into their enclosed area and never impeded them. Even my brother driving into the dump truck… isn’t that impediment? The court order did not allow destruction of water infrastructure. What was a dump truck doing out there? Since that was beyond the scope of the supposed court order, we had a right to know. They could have stopped and answered our questions, but no, they set out attack dogs and tazers and threw Aunt Margaret to the ground. Every incident they are charging us with happened on property that belonged to the State of Nevada. Even if BLM had authority to close public land, they have no authority to close State of Nevada public land. The fence was on the State of Nevada land. Except by invitation, you will not see one of us breach that fence or impede the gather. We did not violate the court order. Dave went over the fence by the invitation of Dan Love and then the sheriff took over and asked for our help to take down the fence and then the cowboys, led by sheriffs squad cars went to release the cattle. The sheriff honored his oath and did his job. He should have done it sooner.
I love my family. I love them. I love this land. I love freedom. I am from the State of Nevada. I’m a true Nevadan. I mentioned before that Nevada became a state on Oct. 31st and we always got out of school on that day… I always thought we got out because it was my birthday. I’m a true Nevadan. I believe you are, too, and love freedom as much as I do. Freedom’s not being lost overseas – it’s lost right here at home in our back yards, our front yards. Until we are willing to do whatever it takes, liberty will be, is being lost. We are not anti-government! Government has its proper place and duties to perform. I want government to do its job. Nothing more. Nothing less. When government does more or less than its job, it becomes the criminal. When government damages our rights, it becomes the criminal. When someone harms or damages another’s life, liberty or property that is the definition of a criminal. Extortion, violence, pointing guns – everything we are charged with, they were doing and thousands of people came running – the world knew about this – China, Ireland (they sent us a flag), New Zealand and other countries – why? Because America stood for freedom and has for years and the world is interested in seeing how America (emotional) will deal with freedom. The world wants to know. The American people said, “yes, we will stand for freedom. Government, you’ve gone too far and we will put a stop to it.”
The courts have a place. It is said that We the People are the fourth branch of government. I say we are the first. The legislature to make laws, the executive to execute laws and the judicial to judge. All three branches are to protect your rights, our rights, freedom, liberty. Government does not have the authority in and of itself – man creates government to fulfill and protect rights. We the people give government the authority through the Constitution. The tenth amendment insures state’s rights.
Evidence will show my father and my brothers are innocent men. We need you to put on that paper that we are not guilty. You are the twelve to represent us, peers, equals, people…we the People.
Guns…lots of guns…scary…camo…freedom of speech…also, the right to bear arms, the second amendment…a militia was necessary. What is a militia? It is defined in the law. U.S. Code defines militia: “all able bodied men 17-45 years of age”. How many of you are a member of the militia? State of Nevada extended that and includes men up to the age of 64. How many of you now are a member of the Nevada militia? There is the organized militia, the National Guard and the unorganized militia – everyone else. Why did the Founding Fathers include the second amendment? Was it for duck hunting? No…no! Militia is mentioned six times in the Constitution. Such a small document and few things are mentioned more than the militia; the central government of this union and yet media or whatever wants to put a bad face on militia. Why did militia come to Bundy Ranch? To peacefully assemble, redress of grievances. No one was harmed except Davey, Ammon and Margaret. You will not see in evidence that we ever harmed anyone! They attack and we turned the other cheek. We were peaceful—insistent? Yes! And, Yes! Demanding. These men, these people did not come to seek an opportunity to point guns at the government. Hundreds, even thousands of people we didn’t know. That’s exemplary. These people came to do good. To protect me, to save my life. I had a sniper pointing at me, 200 armed men surrounding my home, my family (tearfully) Ryan Payne has been portrayed as a bad man. Evidence will show otherwise. He saved my life. He saved my life. Others came. I didn’t even meet most of them until I was in jail with them, may have seen them in passing, but I didn’t know them until jail. I honor and thank them now! I thank all who came. We only have rights we are willing to fight for. You’ll see evidence that I was nearly always with the sheriff or a deputy – always in communication with them – I was side-by-side with Lombardo.
Thank you for coming, for being here. I will still do whatever it takes. This is not a threat, it is determination. I love my freedom. Listen to the still small voice to discern between truth and error. The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials. Listen closely – we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that.
I invite you to our ranch. I recognize your right to use the land. We want you to come and enjoy it. I thank you for this time. Please find me not guilty and these other men not guilty. Stand up for freedom. Thank you.
…or do you? It seems that some feel that you do not.
If you have ever watched a police drama, you are likely familiar with the “Miranda warning” given to people who have just been arrested:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
Recent events might lead one to conclude that NCGOP has their own version of the Miranda warning something like this:
You have the right to expose RINOs. If you choose to expose RINOs, anything you say can and will be used against you in an Executive Committee hearing charging you with party disloyalty
It is quite understandable if the reader is at this point thinking “that’s CRAZY!”. Please bear with me a bit.
Recently, four conservative activists from Haywood County were found guilty by the North Carolina Republican Party’s Executive Committee of “party disloyalty” for allegedly writing emails and Facebook posts stating that they could not support a Republican candidate for Haywood County Commission that they perceived to be a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only). Also, at least one or two were accused of voicing their opinion about an incumbent candidate for the United States Senate.
The punishment handed down for these offenses was a ban from holding any party office in North Carolina for a period of three to five years depending on the individual. It should be noted that this is a ban from holding a party office, not a public office such as town alderman, county commissioner, or legislator.
Where does NCGOP get the right to ban people from party office for stating their opinion that an elected official is a RINO? From a ludicrously broad interpretation of a provision in the party’s Plan of Organization quoted directly below (complete with typographical errors):
Article IX, Section 8. Vacancies and Removals
a. Any Member of a Committee organized under this Plan may be removed either:
i. By a 2/3’s vote of the respective Committee after being furnished with notice of the charges against him, signed by the lesser of (i) 50 Members or (i) one-third of the Members of the respective Committee. Any Republican against whom charges are brought shall be furnished with 2 weeks notice of said charges and be given an opportunity to present a defense. Removal by a vote of the respective Committee shall be confined to gross inefficiency, Party disloyalty (as defined herein) or failure to comply with the County, District, or State Party Plans of Organization
c. For the purposes of this Plan of Organization, “Party Disloyalty” shall be defined as actively supporting a candidate of another Party or independent candidate running in opposition to a candidate of the Republican Party or a Republican endorsed by the appropriate Executive Committee in a non-partisan election.
Article IX section E:
2. Party Disloyalty
Any registered Republican attempting to influence or influencing the outcome of any election against a Republican candidate or Republican endorsed by the appropriate Republican Executive Committee or Legislative Caucus, other than by supporting an opposing Republican Candidate in a Republican primary, may be declared ineligible to hold office under the State Plan of Organization at the State, District, and Precinct level for Party disloyalty by 2/3 vote of the State Executive Committee. Charges of Party disloyalty may be brought by petition of 50 members of the State Executive Committee, or by resolution of a County or District Republican Executive Committee. The State Executive Committee may declare a Republican found to have engaged in Party disloyalty as ineligible to serve in any office under the Plan of Organization for a period of time between 6 months and 5 years.
Without question, the accused were subject to the above provisions by virtue of their membership in the Haywood County Republican Party Executive Committee at the time of their alleged offenses.
But, are the Plan of Organization provisions cited above fairly applicable to the alleged offenses? Let’s examine that.
“Party Disloyalty” shall be defined as actively supporting a candidate of another Party or independent candidate running in opposition to a candidate of the Republican Party or a Republican endorsed by the appropriate Executive Committee in a non-partisan election
Now, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I understand English pretty well. The above language seems quite unequivocal to me. It seems quite clear that for actions to be construed as “party disloyalty” as defined above, one would have to actively support a candidate of another party or an independent candidate running in opposition to a Republican. I just can’t see how else to interpret that.
Is saying “Commissioner Smith is a RINO” in an email or on Facebook “actively supporting” a candidate of another party?
Does saying “I cannot support Commissioner Smith” in an email or on Facebook qualify as “actively supporting” his opponent?
Does simply stating in an email that you will vote for a Democrat who is opposing a Republican Candidate qualify as “actively supporting” a Democrat?