David Price has another challenger . . .

A Cary neurosurgeon-turned-software-entrepreneur-turned-closet-Libertarian-turned-Republican named William "BJ" Lawson is jumping into the 4th district race with a flurry of contradictions that would be baffling to any careful observer. In case you're not up to speed on the 4th district, Lawson will have to take out Orange County GOP Chairman Augustus Cho for the honor of getting his butt kicked by Congressman David Price.

From his own website:

My name is B.J. Lawson, and I am running for Congress as a Republican to restore a Constitutional federal government. Washington must balance its budget, stop serving corporate interests, and allow us to prosper as free, entrepreneurial Americans instead of dividing us into special interest groups that fight each other for government handouts.

As a freakin' Republican? Now I know why the guy still goes by the nickname "BJ" even though his name is William T. Lawson? What the heck has BJ been smoking? Stop serving corporate interests . . . as a Republican? Restore a constitutional federal government . . . as a Republican? But have no fear, BJ is a uniter, not a divider. That's why he's at odds with two-thirds of Americans who don't want to see abortion made illegal. You see, BJ is a "life begins at conception" kind of guy who wants to pull us all into his precious little tent.

There's more, but it's all just a bunch of free-market double-talk. Which raises the real question: Why isn't Lawson running as the Libertarian he really is/ Could it be because he knows a Libertarian can't win anything in North Carolina? You can find out more about the guy at his old blog, which, if nothing else, reveals Lawson's alignment with the lunatic fringe's hero-du-jour, Ron Paul.

The way I see it, BJ's chances of beating Cho are excellent. Republican primary voters will spring for anybody with a boatload of money. But the chances of a pro-life isolationist who wants to disband public education winning the hearts and minds of the 4th district seem pretty close to non-existent. He probably won't even carry Cary.

(And wait till you see his reading list.)




Hat tip to the Dome

Comments

Math...

I agree the numbers and words are cumbersome. Here's my math: (1.84 - 1.00) / 1.00 = 84% increase in the cost of living from 1987 to 2007. I thought it grammatically appropriate to say an increased price is equivalent to a decrease in the purchasing power of the monetary unit. But mathematically, you're right, you're buying 45% less stuff. Sorry for being alarmist.

In any case, 84%/45%... that's NOT stability, although central bankers will calmly compound that to an annual "inflation rate" of ~3%. But if you've been watching your grocery bill, you know that the inflation eviscerating our middle class is much greater than the reported 3%. More to come on that.

Now, is gold stable?

Oh yes, great observation. "Why would we want to tie our currency to a commodity as unstable as gold?" Gold priced in dollars is *not* stable. But that's because gold is priced in dollars, a paper currency subject to inflation/deflation/expansion/contraction and all sorts of monopolistically-managed goodness. If gold was priced in gold, it would be quite stable. :-) Please read this post.

Besides, gold is an entirely arbitrary store of value. If society decides it doesn't really care for shiny things anymore, gold will lose most or all of its value, as it isn't terribly useful to most of us.

There's nothing special about gold. The only requirements for "money" is that it have some non-trivial cost to produce and be impossible to counterfeit. Historically, any commodity will do -- including tobacco leaves. But the fact that tobacco leaves decay faster than gold/silver/palladium/platinum etc. make them less attractive over the long term.

Think about it: should firing up a printing press and putting ink on paper qualify for "money"? Try and pay for your groceries with Monopoly money next time. But if legal tender laws applied to Monopoly money, the store would be compelled to accept it.

A dollar fixed to a certain purchasing power would be nice, but metals are not the way to do it.

The purchasing power of money does not need to be "fixed". It just needs to be subject to market forces so that the supply and demand for money can match the degree of economic activity. That's called floating interest rates, in whatever currency, not interest rates that are set by a central bank.

A dollar that loses some of its value, predictably, every year, also serves as a spur towards investment. People realize that sticking money under the mattress or even in a low-yield savings account is throwing value away. Therefore, they invest in something with a rate of return greater than inflation, if possible.

Predictably? What's predictable about inflation? Our current system rewards debt and speculation, instead of savings and investment. Is it a good thing that people can't "save" for retirement? Is it a good thing that we have to pay the financial services industry for the privilege of putting our savings at risk in volatile markets, while they profit regardless of the outcome?

A dollar that may gain or lose value, unpredictably, would cause an unstable economy simply by nature of its unpredictability. Why invest in new machinery if those dollars might be worth twice and a half as much in ten years?

Bingo. That's EXACTLY what we have. A dollar that does gain (but mostly) lose value unpredictably. As a result, we *have* an "unstable economy simply by nature of its unpredictability." PLEASE read "What Has the Government Done with Our Money" by Rothbard (mises.org), or even "Beating the Business Cycle" by the good folks at the Economic Cycle Research Institute (Amazon).

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

I don't understand what you're saying...

Oh yes, great observation. "Why would we want to tie our currency to a commodity as unstable as gold?" Gold priced in dollars is *not* stable. But that's because gold is priced in dollars, a paper currency subject to inflation/deflation/expansion/contraction and all sorts of monopolistically-managed goodness. If gold was priced in gold, it would be quite stable

Maybe I just don't understand the point you're trying to make, but if we assume the inflation-adjusted dollar is a store of constant value (it's the market's perception of value of everything in the CPI), then as the gold price changes, the market's perception of the value of gold is changing, not the market perception of the value of the dollar.

There's nothing special about gold. The only requirements for "money" is that it have some non-trivial cost to produce and be impossible to counterfeit. Historically, any commodity will do -- including tobacco leaves. But the fact that tobacco leaves decay faster than gold/silver/palladium/platinum etc. make them less attractive over the long term.

Think about it: should firing up a printing press and putting ink on paper qualify for "money"? Try and pay for your groceries with Monopoly money next time. But if legal tender laws applied to Monopoly money, the store would be compelled to accept it.

Right. The reason that our store of value needs to have a non-trivial cost to produce is so that it is scarce. Monopoly money isn't scarce. (Well, almost not scarce.) If we trust the government to keep the dollar scarce, by not printing more than it takes in, then we have the same situation, only without a non-trivial cost to produce. Of course, the operatory phrase above is trust in the government. Obviously, they do print more than they take back in. This, when limited, only influences people to spend and invest, rather than save in cash under the mattress. Thus, the economy is stimulated, at the expense of those on a fixed income.

Those on a fixed income do have Social Security, payments of which are adjusted for cost-of-living increases (inflation). And while it may suck that that $50,000 nest egg buys less than it would have 10 years ago, people should have invested in something like a mutual fund or CD. (I don't have much invested in my own name, although I do have a CD whose rate of return is roughly equal to the annual inflation rate for a 9 month CD for a fairly small sum of money ~$2500. It is possible to maintain the value of your money.)

I would argue that an expanding money supply is also necessary to stave off deflation, because there are more and more people in America using dollars. (Although the eventual shift in oil purchases from dollars to euros or a mixed basket might counteract that population growth.)

Thus, the money is given value by fiat, and it is possible that the government decides to mint tons of money, leading to hyperinflation. Which would be bad. But that's why we have to elect trustworthy officials who wouldn't do that and wouldn't appoint a Fed chairman who would do that. It involves trusting the government, which may be hard for you and others, but it seems better than the alternative.

Predictably? What's predictable about inflation? Our current system rewards debt and speculation, instead of savings and investment. Is it a good thing that people can't "save" for retirement?

Money loses about 4% to 5% of its value annually. So, you take that into account when you plan how to invest/save. But, when gold's value is so unpredictable, it is impossible to account for how much your money might be worth next year or in ten years.

BTW, I will try to get that Rothbard book at some point soon. I have some scrip currency redeemable only at a few local merchants I can spend. After all, $25 for the Regulator is losing its value as we speak. It'll be worth $24 next year. :D

wait...

If we assume the inflation-adjusted dollar is a store of constant value (it's the market's perception of value of everything in the CPI), then as the gold price changes, the market's perception of the value of gold is changing, not the market perception of the value of the dollar.

Here's my fundamental point. Commodities have value because of what the ARE. It's an existential thing -- they exist, can be used for something, and thus have a value that will vary based upon supply and demand.

Our paper dollars have value because the government forces you to accept them. But the value is only what they will purchase. A few years ago, milk was $3 per gallon. Now it's $4 per gallon.

The "inflation-adjusted dollar" is NOT a store of "constant value". Not only because the government's CPI numbers have been completely perverted over the past 20 years, but because the "value" of any and all commodities will always fluctuate based upon supply, demand, and the monetary environment. Over those 20 years, interest rates have been up and down, growth has been up and down, and money has been created and destroyed at the whim of the banking system and mysterious "business cycle". So all commodities have varied in price.

Here's another example -- our currency has lost about half of its value against the Canadian dollar over the past five years. So if you're watching the price of oil or gold go up in US dollars, it's not gone up nearly as much if you've been purchasing it in loonies. What's the "real" price of gold? Is it the price in US dollars? Or loonies? Or euros? Or pounds? How about renminbi?

In a free market, price fluctuations are natural, self-regulating, and healthy. But building an economy in a fiat/fractional reserve world is building a castle on a sand foundation. We're trying to prop things up and keep things from toppling over, while ignoring the shifting foundation.

Here's a quote from that long Redstate post I've been imploring you to read:

The bottom line is that in a free monetary system, where gold or silver or platinum (or whatever) is transferred among buyers and sellers as a medium of exchange, the purchasing power of any individual unit of money WILL NOT REMAIN CONSTANT over time. It will fluctuate, appropriately, based upon the supply and demand for money itself.

I repeat, we “sound money” folks are not against inflation or deflation per se. Inflation is a loss of purchasing power of an individual monetary unit — and in an “honest” system, that simply reflects a decreased demand for money. Deflation is a gain of purchasing power of an individual monetary unit, and simply reflects an increased demand for money.

Perhaps this example will help. Most people get stuck on sound money because they are obsessed with the “quantity” of money. Will we have enough money to create growth? What if there isn’t enough “circulating” because people are hoarding it? (You said earlier that you’re real concern is ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, not MONEY… and I agree 100%. Let’s just see how this plays out.)

Let’s take the case of folks irrationally hoarding gold coins, taking them out of circulation. What happens? The purchasing power of the remaining gold coins go up, and prices go down. Voila, deflation. The money you have now buys more stuff. How is that a problem? Does that hurt economic activity? If you were saving to make an investment, or start a new business, your now-increased purchasing power might be the impetus for pulling the trigger on your latest entrepreneurial venture. Your investors likewise feel that their dollars will now provide enough working capital to fund the business plan, and you start creating value and true wealth in the market. All because prices of goods had fallen (or the purchasing power of your money had increased).

Now let’s look at the flip side. All of sudden these irrational hoarders start dying off, and their relatives find these massive supplies of coins in walls, mattresses, and closets. Assuming the relatives choose to spend or invest the coins, they will then re-enter the economy. Just as the hoarding drove demand for money up (and price levels down), this “dishoarding” drives demand for money down (and price levels up). So more money available means higher prices, or inflation. Is that a bad thing? No… as I’m sure you’d agree, this money is now available for spending or investing… it may be spent on goods and services, or invested still your NEXT entrepreneurial venture. So while low prices may have been the impetus for investment in the deflationary environment, access to this newly-freed capital will be the impetus for investment (and subsequent growth) in the inflationary environment.

Get it? The quantity of money ultimately DOESN’T matter. Prices will adjust to their appropriate monetary ratio based upon the availability of the “moneystuff”, whatever it is.

So we sound-money types don’t fear inflation or deflation *in a free market*. But we should ALL fear inflation AND deflation in a “managed” system with a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking… because the boom/bust cycles that result disrupt what we all want, which is real economic growth.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Here's my fundamental point.

Here's my fundamental point. Commodities have value because of what the ARE. It's an existential thing -- they exist, can be used for something, and thus have a value that will vary based upon supply and demand.

That's the thing with gold. If people were to stop caring about shiny things, that too would be case with gold. It would not be able to "be used for something", and therefore, it's value would "be only what it would purchase".

Our paper dollars have value because the government forces you to accept them. But the value is only what they will purchase. A few years ago, milk was $3 per gallon. Now it's $4 per gallon.

Is that because of the changing value of the dollar? Or because of changes in supply, demand and factors of production used for milk production? (Rising demand for ethanol = rising demand for corn = higher prices for cow feed = highe prices for milk?)

The "inflation-adjusted dollar" is NOT a store of "constant value". Not only because the government's CPI numbers have been completely perverted over the past 20 years, but because the "value" of any and all commodities will always fluctuate based upon supply, demand, and the monetary environment. Over those 20 years, interest rates have been up and down, growth has been up and down, and money has been created and destroyed at the whim of the banking system and mysterious "business cycle". So all commodities have varied in price.

If the government's CPI numbers are so perverted, why do you use them to make claims on your website?

The CPI is based on a basket of goods. The inflation adjusted dollar is equal to enough money to buy a certain amount of milk, gasoline, rent, etc. It is a constant store of value relative to those goods. My inflation-adjusted dollar is always worth a sip of milk, a square foot of apartment, etc.

So if you're watching the price of oil or gold go up in US dollars, it's not gone up nearly as much if you've been purchasing it in loonies. What's the "real" price of gold? Is it the price in US dollars? Or loonies? Or euros? Or pounds? How about renminbi?

That's why you look at the gold price relative to a basket of goods, or a representative of that, the inflation-adjusted dollar.

"(Rising demand for ethanol

"(Rising demand for ethanol = rising demand for corn = higher prices for cow feed = highe prices for milk?)"

Do cows eat corn, or do they eat byproducts? Higher prices for corn (and farm subsidies) increase the cost of many types of food. Nevertheless, the artificial market being created for ethanol by government subsidies (when our type of ethanol doesn't really save that much oil) is another topic that needs to be discussed.

"The CPI is based on a basket of goods. The inflation adjusted dollar is equal to enough money to buy a certain amount of milk, gasoline, rent, etc. It is a constant store of value relative to those goods. My inflation-adjusted dollar is always worth a sip of milk, a square foot of apartment, etc."

No, you're misunderstanding. The government changes how they calculate things in order to make inflation seem less severe. For instance, if last year $1 bought two cans of corn, and this year $1 bought one can of corn or two cans of beans, the government would say: well, we'll just base it on beans this year instead of corn. Small difference to some people, but it's not basing it on the same amount or type of goods. For instance, I believe they used to calculate the cost of steak and now they calculate the cost of hamburger as a type of meal (much cheaper and very different, although both from a cow!)

The government has a good reason to keep official inflation announcements low: they don't want people to panic, and they have to base the adjustment for Social Security on the official CPI. The more SS goes up, the more SS becomes a crisis.

Many studies have been done on how the CPI is fidgeted with.

A few bits...

"But *real* insurance is NOT "all you can eat" corporatecare for a $15 copay. It's paying a premium for real coverage that will save your bacon if a rare and unfortunate event occurs."

Here's the problem -- we're facing a two-headed health care crisis in America, with problems that are interlinked but still distinct. One is the problem of increasing numbers of the uninsured, the other is rising costs. Here's the catch: the phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has proven right over and over again; preventative medicine is one of the best ways to cut costs. "Saving your bacon" turns out to be a very expensive proposition, and it's a lot cheaper to try to keep people from reaching that point. The federal and state governments are some of the only organizations that simultaneously influence large enough spans of the population to see a return on the cost of preventative care, and also can impact people's lives at multiple levels for a more comprehensive approach.

"we need to encourage and inspire each other as free individuals."

Many choices related to health are beyond the purview of individual choice. My diet choices are almost completely limited by the food options available to me at a very local scale, such as what restaurants and grocery stores are around me. An individual only has so much control through "voting with dollars" -- often times their role as electors serves as their best way to influence the choices available to them, and that is, yes, through the big nasty government.

What did they do in the old days?

"My diet choices are almost completely limited by the food options available to me at a very local scale, such as what restaurants and grocery stores are around me."

Not true. This is a modern problem. These days, we think of food as being packaged or processed, and that's a lot of what causes our health problems. My grandparents made or grew all their food, as did the cavemen even when money didn't exist! They never went to a grocery store until they were very old. Many NC towns have fantastic farmer's markets where you can get any type of fruit or vegetable.

If you vote with your dollars and only buy healthy foods, healthy foods would be offered at a better price. Everyone buys Oreos (and a heart attack along with them), so Oreos are featured upfront in the store for Buy One, Get One Free, while sweet potatoes are not.

How do you think the government would solve this? Price controls on groceries? Telling companies what products they can make? That didn't work too well in the USSR.

The old days

This doesn't really change my argument -- add "what can be feasibly grown nearby" and you're there. Add to that, "in the old days," people went hungry when the local crops failed.

As for what guides modern food choices, if you're feeling like it's a wonder of free marketism, I'd suggest you might look at US agricultural policy. Price stabilization and government-centered collectivized risk has essentially wiped out caloric deficits in this country, which in terms of human history, is a monumental achievement. What it hasn't done is addressed nutrient deficiencies, because more than 90% of government funds go to subsidize 5 crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton) and don't address the need for fruits and vegetables. While I agree with Cato and the rest that this system needs an overhaul badly, their solution of eliminating all agricultural subsidies fails to address the problem that they were designed for in the first place: food security. Find a solution that doesn't expose millions to starvation via the gyrations of an unfettered market and seasonal climate variations, and we can talk.

Life begins at conception

Abortion truly is the ultimate splinter issue, isn't it? What a great way to divide the electorate and get them to toe the party line.

I base my position on the belief (yes, it's a belief) that the unborn child is alive and a valuable human being. I've been in too many delivery rooms during stillborn births. Would any sane physician comfort the mother by saying, "Don't cry, it's just a fetus?" Parents who lose a child in utero grieve just as any parents who lose a child.

There's always the (EXTREMELY rare) "life of the mother" argument. In that case, abortion is a moral and spiritual decision that needs to be between the woman and her doctor without government in the room. But Ron Paul said it best:
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

Before you say, "Yeah, but women needing an abortion would avoid a pro-life OB", consider that women don't *choose* to go into life-threatening medical distress that would necessitate such a painful decision. It just happens, although rarely.

Also, while I believe life begins at conception, scientifically we must acknowledge that there is a window of time when it's impossible to know if conception has even occurred. On that basis, I believe things like the "morning after pill" are also moral and spiritual decisions that should be left to a women and her doctor, without the government in the room.

With all of the subtleties in this issue, would you agree that the federal judiciary has NO role issuing a blanket decision that preempts state and local attempts to self-govern?

The government has a role in this context *only* to protect life, not to interfere in the patient/doctor relationship. We may disagree on the definition of life, but you must admit that it's a gray line. Neonatal intensive care units routinely rescue babies that could have just as easily been aborted.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Sounds good to me. I think

Sounds good to me. I think this is a personal, spiritual and medical decision, not one the government should be deciding for you.

Right - kinda...

No one is forcing people to get abortions against their will.

If the Federal government makes abortion legal across the board, it allows Americans to make the decision for themselves.

If the Federal government allows states to make abortion laws themselves, the State governments will be making that personal, spiritual and medical decision for their population. And that is wrong.

What about paritial birth abortion?

What about the case of the seven-month-old fetus who can live on her own but is aborted due to that federal law? Is the government making that decision for her?

Is the government making

Is the government making that decision for her?

No, her would-be mother is.

Does her mother have that

Does her mother have that right, any more than you have the right to decide whether I can live or die? That is the fundamantal question.

Then again, it could be asked, Does any parent have the right to bring a child into this world without their permission? :) I often said that to my parents. "I never asked to be born!"

Corporations

I don't believe corporations would be as evil as they've turned out to be without their unfortunate dominance of our democratic process. As we've degenerated from a Constitutional republic to a representative democracy dominated by corporate interests, I agree that corporations are a big part of the problem.

The limited liability provided by corporations encourages entrepreneurship and risk taking, and ultimately doesn't prevent individuals from liability for criminal behavior. Those are good things. But really bad things happen when corporations escape the discipline of the market by lining up with government, and government interests:

How Do We Get our Jobs Back?
From Grass to Glass
More Heat than Light
Capitalism versus Corporatism
Get a job, no, CREATE a job!
What is Freedom?
Uhhhh... you can't say that!

Sorry for the long reading list, but corporatism and the corporations' abuse of false economies of scale provided by their government influence are a real challenge that we need to address.

The solution, in my opinion, is restoring a Constitutional federal government. If you read the Constitution as a thinking human being (as opposed to a federal judge constrained by precedents of an activist judiciary), and in the tradition of a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, I think you'll agree that the federal government is doing things that it was not intended to do. One of my favorite Jefferson quotes:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed."

The alternative approach is that of the Hamiltonian Federalists who wanted consolidated power in a strong central government. History shows the Hamiltonian approach leads to tyranny, regardless of what name you give the political party du jour.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

BJ, I've been carrying on a debate

on another forum for several days now about this very thing:

Some of your commenters seem to reject the "states rights" perspective, perhaps based upon a healthy concern for the states' ability to injure their own citizens as shown by the horrors of slavery.

and I can tell you with all confidence that the end of slavery was not the end of (some) states' disdain for the freedom, equality and security of their own citizens. That may not be what you meant to infer by mentioning slavery in the quote above, but that's the message that I took away from the statement.

Even a century after the Emancipation Proclamation, Black Americans (and others) were still struggling to gain access to the bare minimum of rights that Whites took for granted every single day. From the education system to the justice system and all points in between, they lived in a different America than we did. And there were some states' duly elected (and reelected) officials who thought that was fine and dandy.

What's the point in being an American, if the definition changes depending on the color of your skin, or your sex, or your sexual preference, or the God you choose to worship (or not), or any other characteristic that sets you apart? This is (one of) the benefits of a strong Federal government—no matter who you are or where you are in this country, the definition of "American" doesn't change.

Since you disdain Hamilton, I'll give you Madison from the Federalist #44:

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed.

Now, if you really want to explore some egregious violations of liberty, spend a little time reading up on some of the past (and present) enactments made by state governments. And know this: most of them would have never made it to the floor of the U.S. Congress, much less be signed into law.

Gee, thanks. Madison :-)

OK, here's the key quote for me:

"The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed."

Madison is suggesting that citizens of states will be more diligent to vote out federal representatives who violate the rights of the states. Maybe that would be the case if we had a more restrained federal judiciary, but the Marshall court irreparably shifted the balance of power to an activist judiciary that codified Hamiltonian nationalism despite the Federalists losing the election of 1800 and disappearing as a political party. In other words, the "balance" that Madison suggests DIDN'T occur because our unelected, activist federal judiciary enshrined the Hamiltonian view despite its being rejected by the electorate. So much for a balance of power.

It also doesn't make sense to me that the State "violations" will be "more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed." As an unsupported assertion, I'd argue that it's counterintuitive. Our state government *should* be more accessible and responsive to our needs than the federal government. Who knows better about earthquake response? Californians? Or bureaucrats in Washington? Is it easier to amend the federal constitution, or our state constitution/plan of organization?

As far as egregious violations of liberty go, yes, the examples are legion. Which is why we need really great, committed people to advocate for state and local governments that meet the needs of their people. Unfortunately, our system of government has been turned upside down to the point that people instinctively think "federal" when they even hear the word government. It's as if state and local government are an afterthought, when in fact it should be exactly the opposite.

Who is responsible for ridiculous legislation that tramples on individual rights getting through our state legislature? We are. Should we rely of the heavy hand of an omniscient federal government to protect us? Ummm... that makes me a bit uncomfortable. What happens if that federal government gets a bit, shall we say, paranoid and starts passing legislation like the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act of 2006? A National ID Card via RealID? The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007?

Ultimately, concentration of power is the issue. Just to give Madison some credit (he was quite a flip-flopper and not one of my favorite founders), we can still appreciate his writings in Federalist 47:

"the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Hmmm... any echoes today?

Finally, with respect to individual liberty -- the genius of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as our founding documents is that they define the individual as the ultimate minority. Advocating for rights as "groups" is a losing game, and just serves to divide us. What would happen if we just let the words of the Declaration speak for themselves:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We've finally overcome the baggage of history to understand that "men" means humankind, inclusive of all ethnicities and genders. From that basis, can we move forward as a nation, respecting those rights of the individual?

This may seem trite, but I found this video to be pretty inspiring (and I'm rarely inspired by Hollywood).

My favorite quote is Morgan Freeman in his introduction: "“The real glory of the Declaration of Independence has been our nation’s epic struggle throughout history to close the gap between the ideals of this remarkable document and the sometimes painful realities of American life.”

BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Yes!

"Unfortunately, our system of government has been turned upside down to the point that people instinctively think "federal" when they even hear the word government. It's as if state and local government are an afterthought, when in fact it should be exactly the opposite."

Exactly. To put this in perspective, who created the federal government? The states! The states give the federal government power, not the other way around. It should be like a triangle, more power at the local and state level and less at the top, but instead it's inverted.

The balance is still there, BJ

Madison is suggesting that citizens of states will be more diligent to vote out federal representatives who violate the rights of the states. Maybe that would be the case if we had a more restrained federal judiciary, but the Marshall court irreparably shifted the balance of power to an activist judiciary that codified Hamiltonian nationalism despite the Federalists losing the election of 1800 and disappearing as a political party. In other words, the "balance" that Madison suggests DIDN'T occur because our unelected, activist federal judiciary enshrined the Hamiltonian view despite its being rejected by the electorate. So much for a balance of power.

Maybe not in the same form the Founders envisioned, but it's still there. I think a good portion of voters (especially in the wake of the 2000 election) are cognizant of the impact of not only SCOTUS but lower courts as well, and this has become a part of our decision-making process when choosing an Executive (President). It's also present in the form of Advise and Consent via Congress.

Now, the balance of power really doesn't matter much if all three branches work as a triumvirate, ignoring each other's excesses so they can extend their (group) power over the masses. I will grant you there is some evidence that this mentality is at work in D.C. these days and it is a matter for concern.

But as long as less than half of the eligible voters in this country take the time to vote, and those people reelect a Unitary Executive as well as sending (mostly) the same old crowd back to D.C., what does that tell you? The vast majority of Americans are pleased with the current state of affairs. They shouldn't be, but they are.

It also doesn't make sense to me that the State "violations" will be "more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed." As an unsupported assertion, I'd argue that it's counterintuitive. Our state government *should* be more accessible and responsive to our needs than the federal government.

Madison's assertion was based on the observation that state governments wield (real) power, and will defend that power if it's threatened from above. In other words, they are a solid "entity" with predictable behavior. The citizenry that falls below the state government, however, is not a solid "entity" with a legitimate and respected voice, and would be less effective at "sounding the alarm" if the state government overreaches. It reminds me of the statement, "Who's watching the watchers." While some municipal governments stand up well under pressure from the state, others are virtually non-entities and haven't a clue what the state (or Federal) governments are doing to their citizens.

But frankly, all of these issues come back to us, right? If most people continue to be complacent about taking charge of their own destiny, positive change will not occur.

Especially problematic in NC

Where the state has almost absolute control over what local governments can do. I see the federal government as an essential check on the the patriarchal tendencies of North Carolina's state government. Until my local municipality has the authority to truly chart its own course, you won't find me willing to champion putting more power in the hands of state lawmakers.

You really think the federal

You really think the federal government is any better??

Why not work on taking the power from the state and giving it to localities?

What about forced segregation in the Armed Forces, Don't Ask and Don't Tell in the military, the Iraq War, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, Harriet Miers, $12 billion cash sent to Iraq on a barge gone missing... do you really want the federal government to have that much power over you? NC has a better record than above, except perhaps on segregation.

?

What about forced segregation in the Armed Forces

You lost me with this one. What forced segregation?

At the same time that the

At the same time that the federal government was sending in troops to allow some black children to go to school in Little Rock, they had segregated barracks, I believe (it may have ended just before that). The federal government was 1.) not allowing the states to do it, and 2.) doing it themselves.

Amen!

Anglico, this is a HUGE point. North Carolina is a model of a "totalitarian state". Our state constitution was reorganized in the Depression, with bankrupt municipalities caught up in the financial collapse given to us by the Federal Reserve and banking system. To prevent this "problem" from happening again, the state took all discretion from municipal and county governments to the point that our cities and counties can't tie their shoes without begging Raleigh for permission. Funny how we tend to misdiagnose the problem, and then overreach with regulatory solutions that completely miss the mark.

But here's my key assertion: we CANNOT depend on a federal government to protect us from an overreaching state government. Our federal government only serves corporate and special interests, is bankrupting the nation, and thinks it appropriate to give us the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, a National ID Card via RealID, and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. You want THEM to keep our STATE government in line?

We need to take back government at every level. My experience and education best suit me to address the fiscal, Constitutional, and foreign policy insanity in Washington, and we need great people to help take back Raleigh as well.

But it sounds like we're in agreement that local self-governance is a good thing! :-)

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Talk about misdiagnosing...

Our state constitution was reorganized in the Depression, with bankrupt municipalities caught up in the financial collapse given to us by the Federal Reserve and banking system.

If anything, the Fed failed to act (quickly enough) to soften the impact of the Great Depression by not regulating the banks enough. The banks wielded way too much power over the Fed back then (too much now, too), and they were loaning money to anybody who could make their mark on the paper. Sound familiar? It should.

But personal and business debt only played part of the role in the collapse. Our trade deficit rose to a level that resembled that of a non-industrial nation, because the government didn't believe in regulating commerce (not like these days, anyway), and U.S. factories were too expensive to retool when you can just ship something in from elsewhere, mostly without paying a tariff.

Plainly put, the 1920's/1930's were a Free Market dream, even after the New Deal came into play. And that dream turned into a nightmare, until the nightmare of WW2 forced us to produce again.

Folks like Ron Paul (and you?) would have the government back away from regulating states and businesses, including the awarding of subsidiies. Let the free market settle itself, right? Wrong. Our trade deficit would shoot through the roof, and the word "job" would be on the lips of a whole lot more Americans than it is now.

You guys whine (and rightly so) about the power and corruption of huge corporations, but (for some strange reason) you point to the massive deregulation of a few decades ago as a step in the right direction. This is a logical disconnect. There are far fewer checks on the expansion of corporate power these days, and our jobs are moving overseas because of it. Why are corporations so influential in our government now? Because deregulation made them more powerful than the government.

It's a Free Market nightmare again, and weakening the Federal government might be enough to make that nightmare last forever.

eta: By the way...did I meet you at the State Fair? I was the guy at the NCDP booth wearing a tie (I used to be a Republican :) ) working with the painfully cute blond-haired law student. I seem to recall someone secretly(?) handing out Ron Paul DVDs that resembled you...

We're SO close!

If anything, the Fed failed to act (quickly enough) to soften the impact of the Great Depression by not regulating the banks enough.

The Fed failed to act, but what do you mean by "regulating the banks"? The *only* prevention for the deflationary Depression would have been massive liquidity injections to keep unsound banks solvent, which would have caused massive inflation. That's paper money at work. Please read this post -- it's short, and timely.

The banks wielded way too much power over the Fed back then (too much now, too), and they were loaning money to anybody who could make their mark on the paper. Sound familiar? It should.

Actually (gulp), the banks ARE the Fed. The banks OWN the Fed. Of COURSE they have too much "power" -- they control the money supply. But can we expect ANYONE to "regulate" a fundamentally insolvent system? Please read this post -- the state of education about this problem is atrocious. And you're exactly right, all this sounds familiar because it's happening RIGHT NOW. Checked your grocery or gas bill lately?

Plainly put, the 1920's/1930's were a Free Market dream

No, the nightmare *started* in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was founded. Check out the documentary at the bottom
of this post. "Free markets" on top of a monopolistically-managed fiat currency are not free markets at all. They are a recipe for booms, busts, social instability, and a gradual slide into tyranny as people continue to look for a "government" to help. Welcome to our nightmare.

Oh, and you probably did meet me at the State Fair. What a blast!

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Balance?

Maybe not in the same form the Founders envisioned, but it's still there. I think a good portion of voters (especially in the wake of the 2000 election) are cognizant of the impact of not only SCOTUS but lower courts as well, and this has become a part of our decision-making process when choosing an Executive (President). It's also present in the form of Advise and Consent via Congress.

The Federal courts should be a shadow of themselves. What's up with a massive Code of Federal Regulations? They're not written by legislators, they're written by lobbyists, who forward them to unelected bureaucrats to be stamped with the appropriate departmental seal and published in the Federal Register.

That's where we are, and it stinks.

It reminds me of the statement, "Who's watching the watchers."

Amen to that! Now that the federal government is our Watcher, and our Decider, should we fall upon our knees and beg a United Nations, or world government, for help?

I prefer a federal government with less power to disrupt our lives.

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

We're basically animals, BJ.

I prefer a federal government with less power to disrupt our lives.

You can believe in the relative "goodness" of mankind shining forth in the absence of tyranny, but that is merely a construct of your imagination. There is no such thing as pure liberty, and there never was. Opportunistic men will seek power over their neighbors, and those who band together to resist such attempts will become oppressors themselves.

It's a drama that's played out every single day in enclaves and villages and towns and cities and regions across the globe. A strong central government doesn't guarantee this type of tyrannical behavior won't happen, but the absence of one guarantees that it will.

You want to see what it's like when the majority of the power rests in the hands of local leaders? Take a trip to the Hindu Kush, or Somalia, or Aceh, or the mountains of Columbia.

Liberty is a myth, BJ. That may hurt your sensibilities, but it's true.

Bingo.

We're basically animals, BJ.

You nailed it.

I believe that's the fundamental belief that distinguishes "liberty-minded" folks from those who prefer we put power in the hands of the/a state (lowercase, in general).

I believe free people are capable of great and wonderful things.

But again, I'm not suggesting that we get rid of government. We just need good government that allows people to be free.

How do you propose that we separate corporate interests, from government interests?
How do you propose that we "watch the watcher"?
How do you propose that we architect a monetary system that doesn't eviscerate the poor and middle class?
How do you propose that we guard against tyranny perpetrated by a strong central government?

I'm all ears...

(I'm also just back from a 13-hour drive over two days with the family. So I'm going to take a break from writing, and look forward to learning from your solutions.)

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

States always take away rights? Oh really?

"Now, if you really want to explore some egregious violations of liberty, spend a little time reading up on some of the past (and present) enactments made by state governments."

What about the states who have given more liberty? What about medical marijuana being allowed in 11 states, Nevada allowing legalized prostitution, Oregon with assisted suicide, I could go on. States have often given more rights than the federal government has.

Did I say that?

States always take away rights? Oh really?

If you want to debate the proper role(s) of Federal and state governments, I'm game. But don't put words in my mouth, trying to position me on the other end of your imaginary spectrum. I said:

some of

Which means (in this context) "not all" and definitely not "always".

Of course state governments have forwarded the freedoms and rights of their citizens countless times. It's the times they put some citizens' rights ahead of others that concerns me, and makes me glad there is an avenue for the oppressed minority to seek redress.

The way you phrased it was

The way you phrased it was something like "if you really want to see some egregious violations of liberty" look at the states, implying that states do nothing but take away liberty.

You said that some state laws would never have made it to the US Congress. I beg to differ. These days Congress is passing all sorts of laws taking away your liberty.

Banning internet gambling (except for fantasy sports and horse racing which have expensive lobbies of course!), the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act which can allow Americans to be held without warrant, sending those who have been in the military reserve for over 10 years overseas for a 15-month deployment, the recent SAFE Act which was passed without the public seeing the final version and may even outlaw providers of free WiFi, Huckabee is even talking about a national smoking ban and I bet this Congress would take it up and seriously consider it (with exceptions for some powerful lobbies, of course!)

Thanks for the example:

Huckabee is even talking about a national smoking ban and I bet this Congress would take it up and seriously consider it (with exceptions for some powerful lobbies, of course!)

Even though eleven state legislatures have already banned smoking (to varying degrees), I'm fairly certain the U.S. Congress won't go nearly that far. There's a "no smoking in schools" bill nearing a floor vote right now that may have trouble passing, and a Waxman bill for a national ban that will never leave Committee.

Oh yeah, I forgot—the District of Columbia passed a ban on smoking, and Congress voted to exempt themselves from that law. So if you're visiting D.C. and you want to grab a smoke legally, head over to the Capitol building. :)

I did say some exceptions!

I believe I read an article about one lawmaker who drove his neighbor lawmaker nuts by smoking cigars all day. The smoke was apparently terrible.

I think there should be a citizens' board to regulate acts directly involving Congress... they should not be able to make exceptions like that or raise their own pay.

The first time I heard about

members of Congress not being subject to traffic laws, I got this image in my head of a drunken, grey-haired guy in a three-piece suit flying down the road in his Camaro SS, yelling out the window and running nuns off the sidewalk. But really, aside from Ted Kennedy...:)

What I was trying to show in that post was how something you were afraid the Federal government might do had already been done by eleven states.

Thanks to BJ and Co. for some lively reading.

There is much to consider and think through here. But at first blush, I come to the following set of commingled conclusions:

1. Do away with the federal government.
2. Do away with states.
3. Do away with taxes.
4. Trust corporations to eventually do the right thing.
5. Give free rein to the establishment of corporate fiefdoms.
6. Keep our fingers crossed.

Sound about right?

J

PS BJ, in all seriousness, I'm still having a very hard time reconciling your positions and the positions of Republican Party . . . though yours are in most cases more appealing.

Cheers!

Nope.

(By the way, I speak for myself, not for BJ, so his positions are perhaps different than mine.) You're misclassifying on every count.

1. Cut down the size of the federal government to a Constitutional level, mostly involving defense and national security.
2. Give the states more power, as the Founders originally intended. States created the federal government, not the other way around. The states existed before the federal government and prior to Lincoln, the federal government didn't really have that much power over them. This concentrates laws and power locally, so people can change it more easily and have a choice if they don't like the laws.
3. Cut unnecessary spending and lower taxes.
4. In a truly free market (no government subsidies or corporate welfare), corporations have to become more trustworthy. As of now, only their lobbyists have to be "trustworthy," if you know what I mean.

As an example, people get stranded on airline tarmacs with no food or water and want regulations passed. Why do they need regulations? The airlines don't care. Why do the airlines not care? Because they're not making most of their money from airline passengers-- they're heavily subsidized by the federal government, and they need to focus on customer satisfaction for one group of people: lawmakers in Congress. That's all they need, and they can keep taking money from the taxpayer and from their customers while giving shoddy service. Take away their subsidies and they'd have to all operate like Southwest Airlines: good customer service and satisfaction. They'd have to respond to their customers' needs, not respond by sending more lobbyists to DC.

So in other words, I personally would trust a corporation run by Ralph Nader to look at new drugs and test them more than I would trust the FDA, which everyone knows is just a shill for Big Pharma. If Nader did something wrong, I could go to someone else providing the same service. If the FDA does something wrong, what do I do? Run a $67 million study on why it went wrong and hope for the best next time? If Nader leads me astray, I can also sue him in court. If the FDA messes up, can I sue them? Maybe, but if I do, I'm just suing myself because the taxpayers pay it in the end.

5. Get rid of corporate welfare from the government and see the free market and customer satisfaction flourish, while government corruption goes down.
6. Study economics and history, and know that this is the best and only method of government that will work.

Last post for the night...

Libgirl is right on. No one is suggesting "doing away" with the federal government, just about the radical notion that our founding fathers and mothers fought and died for a Constitutional republic, "if we can keep it." We've lost it, but it's not too late to get it back. That simply means a federal government that obeys the limits of the Constitution, with more responsibility to the state and local government, and the people.

I'd add just a few words on the corporate front -- we need to fight corporatism by shrinking the federal government. If you read nothing else, please read this quick post:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/24/capitalism-versus-corporatism/

Without corporate welfare and anticompetitive regulations, we would have all the power we need to keep corporations in check -- just stop giving them money. We don't need to "trust" them, and if they lose their customers they will go bankrupt and disappear into the dustbin of history. That's the market at work... no fiefdom can survive without a source of revenue.

Regarding my positions relative to the current Republican Party... well, you may be right. There is ONE label that fits me: Ron Paul Republican :-).

Finally, if anyone wants to continue this conversation in person, I'm meeting a friend Monday morning at the Cafe Carolina at Meadowmont at 8am, and will be free around 9am. I'll likely be hanging out with a MacBook and a cup of legal stimulant before my schedule picks up again in the afternoon. Feel free to say hi!

BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

This is where the Libertarian dream falls apart

Without corporate welfare and anticompetitive regulations, we would have all the power we need to keep corporations in check -- just stop giving them money. We don't need to "trust" them, and if they lose their customers they will go bankrupt and disappear into the dustbin of history.

History and experience say otherwise. Given free reign corporations do all they can to maximize profit; that's their main objective afterall. Without government to regulate them corporations will abuse labor, degrade the environment and monopolize markets at every opportunity. The unregulated monopolies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrate exactly what happens when corporations are left to their own devices.

"Just stop giving them money" doesn't work when there is only one phone company, one cable service, one grocery store etc. That notion also presumes that consumers will have accurate information regarding which corporations are behaving badly. But information is controlled by corporations, often conglomerates with their sticky fingers in very diverse markets. Imagine AOL-Time-Warner merging with Archer's Daniel Midland; we'd never hear another bad word about ADM (and ethanol would be deified).

Also your control, public concern, would only have a chance to work after serious damage has already been done, after the dioxin has been dumped, or after workers have suffered for years under an unregulated corporate yoke.

And do you really think that people are so interested in doing the right thing? All most folks worry about is where they can stuff cheaply. Who cares if Wal-Mart treats its workers like crap, pushes cheap goods of questionable quality (safety?) just so long as it's cheap. Social altruism isn't a part of our consumer based economy, not in the aisles of the #1 store in the world anyways.

This libertarian idea just doesn't work and hasn't worked historically. Even with government regs corporations try to get away with all kinds of nonsense.

It would seem that Libertarianism was invented in a secret boardroom high above some city as a way to induce otherwise sensible, bright people to advocate for removing government regs on corporations. They started with ending regs and then dressed it up with talk of small goverment, lowering taxes, individual rights, following the Constitution. Towards the end of the meeting they turned to the marketting guy and asked him for a name for their new movement. He mused,

" Let's see, .. life, liberty and the, ... liberty ... hmmm, Libertarian!!".

Meeting adjourned.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

www.opensecrets.org

Who is funding YOUR legislators?

Hillary and Obama said they raised $100 million in campaign contributions. Or at least that was floating around the ticker in Times Square last night. (Yes, I watched the ball drop on TV. How lame. Couldn't stay at Raleigh's First Night 'till midnight with three kids!)

Where did that $100 million come from? I'm sure they were individual donations from grassroots supporters. right? There's no influence behind that money, is there?

Wake up, folks! Eight words:

There's NO difference between GOVERNMENT and CORPORATE interests.

Meeting adjourned. :-)

BJ

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Funding sources

88% of Hillary's contributions come from individuals. Obama and Edwards are at 99%. For Hillary and Obama it works out to about $80 million each. I can live with it.

On a more local level, I know my state rep., state sen. and congressman and the collective corporate influence on them is about zero. In fact it might even be negative. :-)

I do agree that corporations have way too much influence on government, but no democratic administration will be as kissy-kissy with corporate America as the NeoCons have been.

There's NO difference between GOVERNMENT and CORPORATE interests.

The above is an extreme view without a consistent basis in reality. If you want to apply it to the last 7 years fine, but there are many, many examples of government acting contrary to corporate desires.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

"Individuals"? Yeah, right. Bundlers are where it's at!

88% of Hillary's contributions come from individuals. Obama and Edwards are at 99%. For Hillary and Obama it works out to about $80 million each. I can live with it.

You can't just look at the headline numbers, my friend. Like Enron, the juicy detail is just a tad below the surface.

Check out this Washington Post article, and look at this page on CapitalEye.

Finally, a quote from HRC's profile on OpenSecrets:
Clinton has already raised more than $90 million (though $10 million comes from her Senate campaign), which exceeds her original goal of collecting $75 million in 2007 alone. She has asked her top tier of supporters, the "HillRaisers," to raise at least $1 million each from other donors-10 times the amount that George W. Bush's "Pioneers" were asked to raise in 2000.

I wonder if she's going to take good care of those HillRaisers. Ya think?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to support the candidates of their choice, and I'm not implying that you don't know your local reps. All I'm saying is that by our government's actions (on BOTH sides of the aisle) show that we're being lied to, and stolen from, on a daily basis.

Again, this is not a partisan thing. The Dow was off 250 today with jobless rates up to 5% and tepid payrolls. Our grocery bills are up 10% annually. Multinational corporations are importing almost everything we buy and exporting our jobs, all while lobbying for corporate welfare and wars on everything.

My concern is that candidates getting funded through big-money bundlers are not getting it from retirees on fixed income, middle income households, students, or young families. One person would have to have a LOT of friends to raise $1 million in anything but the $2,300/$4,600 maximum increments!

Finally, look at all the candidates listed on the Capital Eye bundling page. It's a comprehensive list, and certainly all candidates raising in the double-digit millions are listed. Except for one, that is -- Ron Paul. Wonder why not?

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

The last 7 years

There's NO difference between GOVERNMENT and CORPORATE interests.

The above is an extreme view without a consistent basis in reality. If you want to apply it to the last 7 years fine, but there are many, many examples of government acting contrary to corporate desires.

I *absolutely* apply it to the last 7 years. The bad news about the past 7 years is that they have bankrupted our nation economically, morally, and spiritually. Borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia to finance a pre-emptive war abroad and destroy our civil liberties at home is un-American beyond belief.

The good news is that the past 7 years have been SO bad that more and more people are appreciating the gravity of our situation. We won't get a second chance, so now is the time to act. The status quo must go.

Want to know how I really feel? Check this out:
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/01/01/open-letter-to-newt-gingrich/

William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District

Records?

What are the records for most comments, and most characters in the comment section, for a post?

This has got to be top 10 at least.

this is all NOTHING a

this is all NOTHING a friendly boxing match cant fix.

Oh yeah?

Pages