Here is one that we did to highlight the problems with the Wake School Board. And yes, it is a blatant copy of the one that has gotten certain knickers in a twist over in District 41:

Front
Back

Here is one we did for those of use who are in the County and do not want to be forcibly annexed. For what it is worth, I think a lot of Cary. Heck, my main real estate domain is www.ILoveCary.com! But I like the lifestyle I have in Medfield Estates. I don’t want to greatly increase my taxes by being annexed against my will, which is an undemocratic policy in the extreme, and which I intend on changing.

Front
Back

Last, but CERTAINLY not least, is the direct mail we did about my opponent’s work in first in blocking, and then in watering down, Jessica’s Law. I did not believe that someone could think and vote this way, but research indicates that she did.

Front
Back

This one is my favorite, of course.

Eric

Well, who do you guess? Though she ended up voting for this bill along with all but one member of the NC House, according to JessicasLawNC.org, my opponent was much more concerned with the rights of sex offenders than she is with the rights of children not to be molested. She killed at least one Jessica’s Law bill prior to the passage of the current law. This should come as no surprise, as she is a liberal lawyer. Such people look at the world through a much different lens than most of the rest of us. Most of the rest of us would think that the right of a child to not be sexually abused would trump whatever rights that sex offenders might have.

Here is the quote, straight from their website: “Sub Committee met several times and had many discussions regarding the reasons for allowing sex offenders on school grounds and their rights. North Carolina Representative Jennifer Weiss was more concerned over rights of sex offenders than the victims. The Sub Committee ran into other dilemmas such as; sentencing, structure of wording in the bill and wanting to make changes to what the North Carolina House passed originally with HB 933.” Read the whole background of this, as told by JessicasLawNC.org, by clicking HERE. (You have to scroll down to find it.) And, as much as I wish I was making this up, I am not.

On April 27th, 2007, Another Jessica’s Law advocacy website stated, “We must act now! Our Children’s lives and futures depend on all of us to enact. Last year, Rep Jennifer Weiss ( Democrat- Wake County) Killed H.B. 1921 which was a bill similar to “Jessica’s Law” and now, they want to do the same with H.B. 933/the Jessica Lunsford Act, for N.C. Just guess who is Vice Chairman of the Judiciary II Committee? You guessed it, Rep. Jennifer Weiss. Out of fifteen members of the JII Committee, nine are Democrats and six are Republicans. ” Read the entire post for yourself here.

On April 29, 2007, this same advocacy website stated, ”Last year, Rep. Jennifer Weiss (Dem-Wake) would not allow Rep. Julia Howard (Rep -Iredell)  bill read, which was a version of Jessica’s Law. “ Read it all HERE.

As a policeman, I have locked up sex offenders. They are loathsome people that nobody wants around, and for good reason. Once out of prison, they are likely extremely likely to re-offend and to molest another child. Until someone comes up with some sort of effective treatment to turn these pieces of human debris back into decent citizens, I think that we need to keep them away from our kids. In prison is a good place for them to be. We don’t need to worry about how they like it.

If you have kids, please go to the NC Sex Offender Registry and search the area near your home, and familiarize yourself with the photos of your local sex offenders. That way, if you see one of the perverts near your home, schools, or kids, you can take appropriate actions. And don’t forget to vote for me, to bring some sense back into the District 35 legislative seat.

UPDATE: Response to email: Yes, I know that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, even those arrested for sex offenses. That is one of the hallmarks of our justice system, which provides all with due process. I don’t want to change this AT ALL. What this bill does, despite my opponent’s work against it, is restrict the rights of CONVICTED sex offenders who have already had their day in court. And so what if they don’t like it?

Last night, after attending the Candidate Forum at Glenaire Retirement Community in Cary and the College Republicans meeting at NC State with my son, I returned home to find the campaign signs in my yard vandalized. Someone had damaged a good number of the signs that I have along the front of my yard. Since my wife and daughter were away at the fair, working at the GOP booth, nobody was home for a few hours. And a few hours of darkness was all that it took for the vandals to knock over, tear up, and otherwise damage my signs. Of course, I went back and replaced everything with new signs.

While I was still out in the yard, I noticed a couple of vehicles driving by slowly. Since I live on the dead end of a road, cars that do not belong here stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Two of them would drive up the street, and then drive back down. They looked like they were thinking about re-vandalizing the signs, but thought the better of doing anything while we were home. So, not only do we have vandals, but we have vandals who are cowards. Who apparently endorse my opponent by their actions.

I have also had a bunch of my signs stolen. I know where I put them up, and they are right next to signs from other candidates, even other Republican candidates, that remain untouched. Some thief or a group of thieves has been stealing them in a somewhat organized fashion. That’s OK - I realized that a subset of the sort of person who would support my opponent was the sort of person who has no respect for other people’s property. So, I built in an overage into our sign budget, and had a second batch of signs ready for this eventuality. So we soldier on, replacing the signs, and knowing that we are doing the right thing.

There is a funny thing about doing the right thing - it upsets some folks! But since I have the courage of my convictions, I accept the fact that the thieves and vandals (and other criminals) don’t like my tough on crime stances that are at odds with my lawyer opponent. But I know how to deal with criminals. I have locked up enough criminals (including thieves and vandals) back when I was a street cop. I know their type.

But what I don’t know is why anyone would want to have anything to do with these people. I call on my opponent to run a clean campaign, and to tell her folks to quit stealing and vandalizing.

And it also was a good thing for the sign vandals at my house that they did not come by when I was around.  I certainly think that it is in their best interests not to do that.

UPDATE: Here is a blog post I wrote for Katy’s Conservative Corner, about some sign stealing and other shenanigans last year in the Cary Town Council races.

Well, my opponent has an effectivness rating, from a third-party organization that I am not affilliated with, and that is not affilliated with the Republican Party.

Civitas Action has given my opponent a Conservative Effectiveness Rating of 16 out of 100.

Yep. 16 out of 100. That is ranked 19 out of 120 House members. (123 were rated, but that accounts for such losers as Jim Black and Thomas Wright, who had to leave the House in order to serve prison time.) Of course, two members got a zero rating, so I guess that District 35 residents ought to count their blessings that she got as high as a 16.

I assure you that my Effectiveness Rating will be MUCH higher - I expect it to be closer to 95-100%.

FYI, their official organization description is, “Civitas Action is a 501(c)(4) non-profit that educates and informs North Carolinians on policy issues as well as the actions of their elected officials.”

It never stops, does it?

I guess there is some truth to the saying that she never met a tax she didn’t like to raise, but did she have to go and invent a new one?

Luckily, this bill did not pass, and the state-wide transfer tax has failed in every county that has voted on it. In this economy, who can afford it?

But then, my opponent is a liberal attorney. What else would you expect?

I have several problems with this:

• This would remove land from the tax rolls of the counties in which it is located.
• The state can buy an easement with this money, and not outright purchase title to this land. Considering all of the fraud and shenanigans with land deals that have transpired with politically connected people lately, I don’t trust this. I would bet that prominent Democrat Party members would have easements purchased, but still retain the use of and title to the land. Don’t bet against it!
• This is a horrible time to have the state incur new debt.
• This will saddle North Carolina taxpayers with two large bills: One bill to pay off the bond and the interest on the bond, and another bill to pay to manage and maintain the land.
• There is also some language that deals with incentives to business and with grants to a private corporation and some other programs that the state has no business being involved in.

The solution is to keep the land in the hands of private owners. This will not cost the state money, and private owners have an overall better record of maintaining their land (and buildings) than does the state.

My opponent sponsored this bill, that adds yet one more mandate onto this ever-growing heap of mandates. It provides a complex framework that insurance companies have to follow, and that makes it so they MUST cover mental health care with the same coverage as physical medical care. It sounds like such a good idea. Who wants to not have mental health care if they need it?

But here is the other side, which is more important:

 What if I don’t want to spend the extra money on mental health coverage, because it is not important to me? I have no liberty to do this. What if mental health coverage adds an extra, say $100 per month to my premium, and I cannot now afford to pay the insurance? When I am without any insurance at all, am I better off knowing that if I could afford it, I would have mandated mental health coverage (along with the full list of 47?)

The answer is that I am NOT better off with the choice that I am given with this and other mandates. I am NOT better off with a choice between a gold-plated program designed by the liberals of the North Carolina Legislature and a choice of no coverage at all. And I do not intend to start a drug habit, treatment of which is also mandated to be covered by this bill.

But the “nanny staters” in the General Assembly disagree. That’s why you need to vote for me.

“ Commencing in grade seven, instruction and materials shall provide information about the effectiveness and safety of all FDA‑approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy, including, but not limited to, emergency contraception. ” 

Great. Now our 12-year-olds will all be taught all about condoms and all sorts of things that I don’t want my 12 year old to be worried about just yet. And yet again, the pro-abortion folks that my opponent is snuggled up with (Lillian’s List, NARAL and Planned Parenthood) will be gleeful when they promote the “instant abortion” morning after pill. That is what the “emergency contraception” in the bill means. And if you believe that a human being is formed at conception, like I do, then it is certainly killing a human life.

Let’s read on.

“A school unit that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (2a) of this subsection earlier than grade seven may provide age appropriate and medically accurate information on any of the general topics contained in sub‑subdivisions f. through j. of subdivision (2b) of this subsection.”

Gee, isn’t this great, too? I was worried about my 12-year-old. Now, it appears that this would encourage schools to offer sex education at an even younger age. Is kindergarten too early for these folks?

And see what is crossed out: “shall teach that abstinence from sexual activity until marriage is the only certain means of avoiding out‑of‑wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases when transmitted through sexual contact, and other associated health and emotional problems”

No more abstinence education, no sirree.

So, in the mind of my opponent, 7th graders (or younger students) ought to be wearing condoms, having emergency abortions if they don’t work, and should not be taught to keep their legs together and their trousers zipped until marriage. 

I guess that my opponent thinks that seventh graders having sex is not dangerous. But, according to her, it is too dangerous to ride in the back of a pickup truck. Go figure.