Press Release Prescribed burns planned for the Nantahala National Forest

PRESS RELEASE

MURPHY, N.C., March 29, 2016 -- The U.S. Forest Service plans to conduct a 1,700 acre prescribed burn in the Nantahala National Forest on Wednesday, March 30, 2016.

The agency will conduct the burn on the Cheoah District in upper Nantahala Gorge area. The burn is located on the north-west side of Highway 74 in the Nantahala Gorge, between Ledbetter Creek to the west and Mudcut Branch to the east.

The goal of the burns is to reduce the amount of fuel on the forest floor. The burns will also restore fire adapted vegetation and improve wildlife habitat. Click here to learn more about restoring fire to the mountains.

The safety of the public and firefighters is the highest priority during a prescribed burn.

A portion of the Bartram Trail (Tr 67) will be closed during burn operations. Trail closed signs will be posted on both the North and South portions of the Bartram Trail that intersects the burn unit. The public is asked to heed signs posted at trailheads and roads and to stay away from burn areas and closed roads and trails.

Public traveling on Highway 74 may see smoke. Information signs will be posted on Highway 74 at both the east and west entrances of the gorge as well on Highway 28 at Stecoah Gap and at the Almond/Highway 74 intersection. All prescribed burns follow smoke management guidelines to mitigate impacts to the public.

A helicopter will assist in burn operations.

Read More

Pat Caddell: The Media Have Become an "Enemy of the American people"

Pat Caddell gave an important talk this past week entitled “The Audacity of Corruption” and it addressed some themes that are very dear to my heart. Most significantly, corruption and bias in the media. I suggest that you find time to watch the whole speech.

Pat Caddell closed with these words: “The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and go to serve—to decide that they will now become an active participants—when they decide that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if…we allow this stuff to go on, and…we’ve crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.”

Source: Pat Caddell – “The Audacity of Corruption”



Transcript:

Thank you. Glad to be with you. This could take a long time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this. I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people. That changed in 1980. There’s a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever. But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances. We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history. For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%. So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well. I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.” What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Advisor—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms. I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran. I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending. This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.” I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked. Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration we had Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator. That’s a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won’t look into this. It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down. Yes, the President could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?” As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!” I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. 60%, or 80%—it’s closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the President and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama. But nobody says a word. Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power. And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.

When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated. I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.” This press corps serves at the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together. The problem here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.

Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about. And so that’s as much as I can do in twenty minutes. So then we—we have a few moments for questions. Yes, sir?

ARONOFF: Let’s get a few questions here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER : Yes, I wanted to offer my interpretation for why this dynamic is happening. I’d like your reaction. I think that the media is working with the government, because the government hands out so many freebies—

CADDELL: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: —you know, for market share, and, therefore, they have to work in sync with them in order to ensure the good graces. I think, also, the advertisers who generate the revenue for the newspapers are also getting those freebies, and so they can then influence the media—

CADDELL: The corruption in this town is so great. Everybody in Washington seems to almost be on the take—with the exception of everybody in this room, and the assistants here. But, I swear to God, it’s so—the idea that I should get something, you know—the reason, when you have firms that have Ed Gillespie in business with Jack Quinn, who was the counsel for Bill Clinton, and responsible for the pardon of Marc Rich, among other things, is because everybody in this—those people on K Street, in both parties, are about arrangements and money. Everyone in the press is. We have stimulus money being given. We have people who, as I said, the relationships, when people are making contracts, and their husbands and wives are getting—Jay Carney’s wife works in the government! Now he works—he was the head of the Time Magazine! He was a liar then, and a liar now, apparently! You know—and nobody says there’s anything wrong with this. And you’re right: Everybody’s on the take here, and everybody’s cutting up their stock. That’s why, what used to be one of the best and most important things for the press, which was the investigative journalism of corruption and money, the stealing of the taxpayers, the looting of the Treasury, isn’t an issue, and why no one speaks of it in this town. Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Pat, just a quick question. Is it in violation—can it be seen as a violation of their charter for the major networks to demonstrate such obvious bias? I mean, is that a violate their FCC license agreements?

CADDELL: Well, their license agreements only go to their stations. They don’t really go to the networks themselves. But I—you see, that’s why we’re at this slippery slope. This is what scares me. Because you start saying, “Well, somebody should do something about this.”

My argument, when I speak to the press, is very simple: One day you’re going to get my combination of George Wallace and Huey Long running for public office. He’s going to get up and say how—he’s going to point out “How the press is going to get me, and let me tell you what they’re going to say about me, because they want to stop me,” and he’s going to say, “You know what? We’ve gone too far with this First Amendment stuff. We need to make them serve the people.” We’re sliding toward a system by establishing the fact that the press, in fact, has prostituted themselves in the service of a political party, or a political candidate, and once you go down this road and say, “That’s happening,” then people say, “Why do we need a First Amendment? Why should we protect them? They’re not protecting us.” That’s the threat here. That’s the danger that I worry about, because we desperately need a real free press, whatever its faults, that protects the people. And soon, they will be owned by the people—we’re getting very close to that. Watching the coverage of this stuff, in the last ten days, on Libya, and the press corps and the networks serving as nothing but offshoots of the White House Press Office, is really scary. We’re going to get to this question, because that is down that road. These people are going to destroy freedom in America. I don’t care about their partisan preferences, I care that, in the end of the day, somebody’s going to say, “Enough of this!” And somebody will carry the day, and that’ll be that. Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: Thank you. You—thank you! Incredibly good twenty minutes! I agree with everything you said! I am very concerned about Romney’s poor campaign, combined with the media bias the way it is. Is there anything that Romney can do at this point?

CADDELL: Well, he should’ve been out there already! He should’ve been out there pushing back—and so should the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment, as I said, in this town—I mean, all they seem to be in the business, to me, a lot of the establishment, is getting a lot of money to line their pockets, and not fighting or doing things that are effective. Why aren’t they out there challenging this? Why isn’t Romney himself getting up and saying, “I’m running against two organizations: I’m running against the Democrats and the President, and I’m running against the mainstream media, which will not tell you the truth”? Now let me tell you something: You want to liven up some of your rallies? That’ll do it. But they don’t do it because this man dares to be cautious. He’s going to dare-to-be-cautious himself right out of a race that was his to lose, and he’s losing it.

ARONOFF: One last question. Anybody? Go ahead.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Are there no patriots in the media who—

CADDELL: Oh, yes, there are! There are some.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Do they not see where—

CADDELL: Well, the problem is—let me say this—because nobody raises the question, because no one raises from the viewpoint that I’m raising it from. To raise it from the viewpoint where Republicans or conservatives “We don’t like what you’re doing to us,” only makes them dismiss that. What is not to be dismissed is what this is doing, and what it is in terms of the specifics of challenge. These individual reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they can’t stand the heat. That’s my experience. You ever watch reporters under attack in a public venue and so forth? They wilt like—they melt like ice on the equator. The fact is that they need to be called out. Their organizations need to be called out. Ezra Klein still writes for The Washington Post? I mean, this is unbelievable! They had a secret operation group, “Journo” group, online, coordinating how they would promote Obama, and how they would attack Republicans—and he’s still there? But nobody calls out the publisher, or the editor, or whatever—there is no effort here—or calls him.

The fact is, if I were out there, if I were doing one of these campaigns, I wouldn’t let one of these guys by with anything. I would make the fact that the American people, already expressed in the Gallup poll, say—I would give them all the evidence they need to confirm their beliefs. I would change the dialogue here. But until that happens, you’re gonna have two teams—your whole team has an echo chamber of support—attacking you. How do you ever expect to win? Really? I mean, you can when it’s the national tide, 1980. We have a different press now. They have now made the decision they will control the political process. They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party. That’s the legal issue that I would have been exploring. I mean, I would begin to put the heat on.

But the Republicans never said a word. When Comcast, which bought out the administration—they’re my cable company in Charleston, they’re just so bad, I guess every cable company is awful, but they’re the worst—buys a network, is allowed to buy a network—the Justice Department allowed this—no Republican stood up and said, “This should be stopped!” I mean, really! You get what you ask for. So, anyway, I’ve got to go. I’ve got to go do TV.

ARONOFF: Thank you very much.

Read More

NC General Assembly Joint Republican Press Conference of 02-24-2009

Here is the Press Conference from the other day that I was unable to listen to or record because the audio quality of the General Assembly's webfeeds were so poor that day. 

It is in three parts:

Read More

Video of Clean Up Probation Mess Press Conference

Here is the video from the Press Conference I posted the audio and Press Release from earlier today:


Sen. Phil Berger, the NC Senate Republican Leader discusses a bill he is introducing to allow for warrantless searches of probationers by any law enforcement officer. The bill also requires that every supervised probationer submit to the searches at reasonable times.

Read More

Big Brother Says No Smoking in North Carolina

Rep. Hugh Holliman pitches his bill to ban smoking in public workplaces.
Hat Tip: Mark Binker's You Tube Channel

The Bill is called HR 2--"Prohibit Smoking in Public & Work Places."

And would bring down the full force of the government upon you if you had a place of business and allowed smoking on your premises. One more freedom the Government wishes to take from you. 

If I don't want to be around people who are smoking...I don't go to places where they are smoking. That should be the end of the story, and would be, if people had any common sense. It appears that the people of North Carolina are going to be getting the laws they deserve.

The full text of the Abomination as it exists right now is below:

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2009

H                                                                                                                                                    1

HOUSE BILL 2

 

 

 

 

Short Title:     Prohibit Smoking in Public & Work Places.		(Public)
Sponsors:	Representatives Holliman, Weiss, Glazier, Barnhart (Primary Sponsors);  Adams, M. Alexander, Bordsen, Burris‑Floyd, Carney, Cotham, Dickson, England, Fisher, Goforth, Goodwin, Hall, Harrell, Harrison, Insko, Luebke, Mackey, Martin, Neumann, Pierce, Ross, Tarleton, Underhill, Wray, and Yongue.
Referred to:	Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.

January 29, 2009

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Effective January 2, 2010, Article 23 of Chapter 130A of the General Statutes reads as rewritten:

"Article 23.

"Smoking Prohibited in Public Places.Places and Places of Employment.

Part 1. Smoking in State Government Buildings."Part 1A. Findings and Intent.

"§ 130A‑491.  Legislative findings and intent.

(a)        Findings. – The General Assembly finds that secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer, heart disease, and asthma attacks in both smokers and nonsmokers. In 2006, a report issued by the United States Surgeon General stated that the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk‑free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

(b)        Intent. – It is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the health of individuals in public places and places of employment and riding in State government vehicles working in or visiting State government buildings from the risks related to secondhand smoke. It is further the intent of the General Assembly toprotect the health of individuals driving or riding in State‑controlled passenger‑carrying vehicles assigned permanently or temporarily to State employees or State agencies or institutions for official State business.allow local governments to adopt local laws governing smoking within their jurisdictions that are more restrictive than the State law.

"§ 130A‑492.  Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Article:

(1)        "Employee". – A person who is employed by an employer, or who contracts with an employer or third person to perform services for an employer, or who otherwise performs services for an employer with or without compensation.

(2)        "Employer". – An individual person, business, association, political subdivision, or other public or private entity, including a nonprofit entity, that employs or contracts for or accepts the provision of services from one or more employees.

(3)        "Enclosed area". – An area with a roof or other overhead covering of any kind and walls or side coverings of any kind, regardless of the presence of openings for ingress and egress, on all sides or on all sides but one.

(4)        "Grounds". – An unenclosed area owned, leased, or occupied by State or local government.

(5)        "Local government". – A local political subdivision of this State, an airport authority, or an authority or body created by an ordinance, joint resolution, or rules of any such entity.

(6)        "Local government building". – A building owned, leased as lessor, or the area leased as lessee and occupied by a local government.

(7)        "Lodging establishment". – An establishment that provides lodging for pay to the public.

(8)        "Local vehicle". – A passenger‑carrying vehicle owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by local government and assigned permanently or temporarily by local government to local government employees, agencies, institutions, or facilities for official local government business.

(8a)      "Public place". – An enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted.

(8b)      "Place of employment". – An enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer that employees use during the course of employment or for any other purpose.

(8c)      "Tobacco shop". – A business establishment the main purpose of which is the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, and accessories for such products that receives no less than seventy‑five percent (75%) of its total annual revenues from the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, and accessories for such products, and does not serve food or alcohol on its premises.

(9)        "Smoking". – The use or possession of a lighted cigarette, lighted cigar, lighted pipe, or any other lighted tobacco product.

(10)      "State government". – The political unit for the State of North Carolina, including all agencies of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government.

(11)      "State government building". – A building owned, leased as lessor, or the area leased as lessee and occupied by State government.

(12)      "State vehicle". – A passenger‑carrying vehicle owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the State and assigned permanently or temporarily to a State employee or State agency or institution for official State business.

"Part 1B. Smoking Prohibited in State Government Buildings and Vehicles.

"§ 130A‑493.  Smoking prohibited in State government buildings and State vehicles prohibited.vehicles.

(a)        Notwithstanding Article 64 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes pertaining to State‑controlled buildings, smoking is prohibited inside State government buildings except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. As to smoking rooms in residence halls that were permitted by G.S. 143‑597(a)(6), this Article becomes effective beginning with the 2008‑2009 academic year.

(b)        Smoking is permitted inside State government buildings that are used for medical or scientific research to the extent that smoking is an integral part of the research. Smoking permitted under this subsection shall be confined to the area where the research is being conducted.

(c)        The individual in charge of the State government building or the individual's designee shall post signs in conspicuous areas of the building. The signs shall state that "smoking is prohibited" and may include the international "No Smoking" symbol, which consists of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it. In addition, in any State psychiatric hospital, the person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls the hospital shall:the individual in charge of the building or the individual's designee shall:

(1)        Direct any a person who is smoking inside the facility to extinguish the lighted smoking product.

(2)        Provide In a State psychiatric hospital, provide written notice to individuals upon admittance that smoking is prohibited inside the facility and obtain the signature of the individual or the individual's representative acknowledging receipt of the notice.

(c1)      Smoking is prohibited inside State vehicles. The individual or the individual's designee in charge of assigning the vehicle shall place one or more signs in conspicuous areas of the vehicle. The signs shall state that "smoking is prohibited" and may include the international "No Smoking" symbol, which consists of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it. If the vehicle is used for undercover law enforcement operations, a sign is not required to be placed in the vehicle as provided in this subsection.

(d)        Notwithstanding G.S. 130A‑25, a violation of Article 23 of this Chapter shall not be punishable as a misdemeanor.

"§ 130A‑494.  Other prohibitions.

Nothing in this Article repeals any other law prohibiting smoking, nor does it limit any law allowing regulation or prohibition of smoking on walkways or on the grounds of buildings.

"§ 130A‑495.  Rules.

The Commission shall adopt rules to implement this Part.

"Part 1C. Smoking Prohibited in Public Places and Places of Employment.

"§ 130A‑496. Smoking prohibited in public places and places of employment.

(a)        Notwithstanding Article 64 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes, smoking is prohibited in public places and places of employment, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b)        Smoking may be permitted in the following places:

(1)        A private residence, except when being used commercially to provide child care or adult care services.

(2)        A tobacco shop if smoke from the business does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this Article. A tobacco shop that begins operation after July 1, 2009, may only allow smoking if it is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the tobacco shop and smoke from the shop does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this Article.

(3)        A tobacco manufacturing or processing facility.

(4)        A designated smoking guest room in a lodging establishment. No greater than twenty percent (20%) of a lodging establishment's guest rooms may be designated smoking guest rooms.

"§ 130A‑497. Implementation and enforcement.

(a)        A person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment in which smoking is prohibited shall:

(1)        Conspicuously post signs clearly stating that smoking is prohibited. The signs may include the international "No Smoking" symbol, which consists of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it.

(2)        Remove all indoor ashtrays and other smoking receptacles.

(3)        Direct a person who is smoking to extinguish the lighted tobacco product.

(b)        A person who continues to smoke in a nonsmoking area described in this Part following oral or written notice by the person in charge of the area or the person's designee that smoking is prohibited shall be guilty of an infraction and punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

(c)        The Commission shall adopt rules to implement the provisions of this Article.

(d)        The provisions of this Article and the rules adopted by the Commission to implement the provisions of this Article shall be enforced by a local health department.

(e)        Conviction of an infraction under this section has no consequence other than payment of a penalty. A person found responsible for a violation of this section may not be assessed court costs.

(f)         Notwithstanding G.S. 130A‑25, a violation of this Part shall not be punishable as a misdemeanor.

"Part 2. Local Government Regulation of Smoking.

"§ 130A‑498. Local governments may restrict smoking in public places.

(a)        Notwithstanding any other provision of Article 64 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes to the contrary, a local government may adopt an ordinance, law, or rule restricting smoking in accordance with subsection (b) of this section.and enforce ordinances, board of health rules, and other laws or policies restricting or prohibiting smoking that are more restrictive than State law and that apply in buildings, on  grounds, in publicly owned, leased, or operated vehicles, or in public places.

(b1)      A county ordinance adopted under this section is subject to the provisions of G.S. 153A‑122.

(b)        Any local ordinance, law, or rule authorized under this section may restrict smoking only in:

(1)        Buildings owned, leased as lessor, or the area leased as lessee and occupied by local government;

(2)        Building and grounds wherein local health departments and departments of social services are housed;

(3)        Repealed by Session Laws 2007‑193, s. 3.1, effective August 1, 2008.

(4)        Any place on a public transportation vehicle owned or leased by local government and used by the public; and

(5)        Any place in a local vehicle.

(c)        As used in this Part, "local government" means any local political subdivision of this State, any airport authority, or any authority or body created by any ordinance, joint resolution, or rules of any such entity. As used in this Part, "local government" does not include community colleges as defined in G.S. 115D‑2(2).

(d)        As used in this Part, "grounds" means the area located within 50 linear feet of a building wherein a local health department or a local department of social services is housed.

(e)        A county ordinance adopted under this section is subject to the provisions of G.S. 153A‑122."

"§§ 130A‑499 through 130A‑500: Reserved for future codification."

SECTION 2.  Effective January 2, 2010, G.S. 130A‑22 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:

"(h1)     A local health director may take the following actions and may impose the following administrative penalty on a person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment and fails to comply with the provisions of Article 23 of this Chapter or with rules adopted thereunder:

(1)        First violation. – Provide the person in violation with written notice of the person's first violation and notification of action to be taken in the event of subsequent violations.

(2)        Second violation. – Provide the person in violation with written notice of the person's second violation and notification of administrative penaltie s to be imposed for subsequent violations.

(3)        Subsequent violations. – Impose on the person in violation an administrative penalty of not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the third and subsequent violations.

Each day on which a violation of this Article or rules adopted pursuant to this Article occurs shall be considered a separate and distinct violation. Notwithstanding G.S. 130A‑25, a violation of Article 23 of this Chapter shall not be punishable as a criminal violation."

SECTION 3.  This act is effective when it becomes law.

Read More

Audio of Berger and Fisher Press Conferences

Here is the audio of the Press Conferences held by NC Senator Phil Berger (focusing Education Issues) and Representative Susan Fisher (introducing a bill called Healthy Youth Act).

NC Senator Phil Berger

NC Represaentative Susan Fisher

Read More

NC General Assembly Legislative Calender 02-03-2009

Here is what is on the plate for today in that den of iniquity known as the North Carolina General Assembly...

9:30 AM	Press Conference/Sen.P. Berger	Press Room LB
10:00 AM	Press Conference/Rep. Fisher	Press Room LB
11:00 AM	Session Convenes (House)	House Chamber
1:00 PM	Session Convenes (Senate)	Senate Chamber

I will be carrying the press conferences by both Senator Berger and representative Fisher live on Conservative Thunder. I will probably have an audio player embedded by 9.20 this morning over there. **8.12am** update-- [I put it up early, click here]

Read More

Sarah Palin Press Conference at the Republican Governors Association

Here is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin at the Republican Governor's Association Press Conference:

Read More

Gas Crunch: Asheville Press Conference Called To Address Fuel Shortage

Oh. Joy. Here. Comes. Big. Government. To. The. Rescue.

It starts at 3 PMish.

Listen Live. (May require Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer)


I will post the audio here after it is over.

**09-25 10.43 AM**

The audio feeds kept dropping, so unless I can find an archived recording of the Press Conference...the best place for a very brief over view is the Mountain Xpress.

It (the press conference) was a colossal waste of time.

Read More

Mumpower To Take Shuler Cut-Out On The Road

I have the latest Press Release from the Mumpower Campaign, and I think he has hit upon an excellent idea that is even better than the "empty chair" prop used by Shuler when Taylor wouldn't show up to debate him on eight separate occasions during the 2006 Campaign Cycle.

Mumpower To Press On with 'Missing Man' Debate Series



In a formal press conference held today on City Hall steps in Asheville, NC 11th District Republican Congressional candidate Carl Mumpower announced plans to press on with debates with incumbent Heath Shuler.

During the press conference, Mumpower introduced a life-size cardboard cut-out of his opponent he called 'Shulerman'. "We worked hard to get Heath an orange tie," said Mumpower. "I am looking forward to traveling with him throughout the 11th District to make sure that people have an opportunity to know his true liberal voting record and obligations to lobbyists who are funding 98% of his roughly 2.8 million in special interest contributions from outside the district."

Mumpower announced the first debate will be on October 9th in Bryson City at the Swain County Administration Building beginning at 6:00. "We are going to uphold the 9th Commandment and represent Shuler's positions on the issues fairly and honestly." said Mumpower. "His 'quotes, notes, and votes' will be presented in response to questions from the audience. If the real Heath Shuler decides to join us, that will be all the better. We will keep him informed in case he decides to change his mind again."

"Heath does not want his voting record revealed through an authentic debate." said Mumpower. "It's easier to buy your seat in Congress today than to earn it. It will be up to the people of WNC as to whether his strategy is successful."

Principles first - always.

###

Commentary

I will remind the readers that Congressman Shuler has even gone out of his way to avoid answering the question of having a debate, and my arch-rival, Gordon Smith of the group blog Scrutiny Hooligans has even told Shuler to 'Man Up' and debate Mumpower.

Here is a link to my previous coverage of the Running Man, I mean Congressman Shuler, and here are two videos of him running away from the question of debating Mumpower:


He ran from me in Cullowhee


He ran from Richard Bernier in Woodfin

I have a question for you, will he continue running?

Why is Congressman Heath Shuler afraid to face Dr. Carl Mumpower in an honest debate?

If Heath Shuler is afraid of Carl Mumpower, how then can he be brave enough to face the other politicians in Congress?

I have liked this Congressman and have agreed with him on a number of issues. Why is he so willing to throw away the respect he has earned in the past two years in Congress?

Read More

National Press Conference.... Oil Price Spurs ANWR Action

To pay less, save the environment, and stop sending trillions to foreign dictators. “We can’t drill our way out of our energy problem.” This daily mantra underscores an abysmal grasp of economics by the politicians, activists, bureaucrats and judges who are dictating US policies. If only their hot air could be converted into usable energy.

This is from Syrin, who hosts a radio show on Blog Talk Radio. She will be broadcasting live at 2.30 PM Eastern Time, and you can listen to her here:



Or on her show page, and join in the chat room (I don't know if it will be open or not) and interact with her and the chatizens.

I enjoy downloading and listen to Syrin's shows, and hope that you will, too.

Read More

Economists see US avoiding recession

LOS ANGELES—The U.S. economy will suffer as the slumping housing market eats away at job creation and consumer spending, but the nation should avoid slipping into a recession this year, according to a new economic report.

A recession could still happen though, if the credit crisis that has stifled the housing market deepens, preventing consumers from buying big-ticket items like cars and businesses from spending on equipment, according to the quarterly Anderson Forecast by the University of California at Los Angeles.

"We don't see that happening," said Edward Leamer, director and co-author of the forecast released Tuesday. "This is a tough call, but I will be very surprised if this thing actually precipitates into recession."

The forecast anticipates job growth remaining sluggish in 2008, with the U.S. unemployment rate rising to 5.5 percent by the end of the year. The February rate was 4.8 percent.

The forecast expects the economy to post gross domestic product growth of about 1.5 percent this year, rising to about 3 percent growth in 2009. GDP grew 2.2 percent in 2007, the weakest showing in five years.

The no-recession forecast runs counter to the outlook among many economists and financial pundits, who contend the economy has already started to shrink amid rising unemployment, job losses, record oil prices, and the lingering effects of the housing and credit crises.

The U.S. lost 63,000 payroll jobs last month, the second consecutive month of job losses. The last time the U.S. posted a two-month drop in payroll jobs was in 2003, when employers were still struggling through the aftermath of the 2001 recession.

Leamer said the nation may be experiencing negative economic growth in the current quarter. Economists generally look for at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth before they make a recession determination.

Source: Denver Post

[Emphasis mine throughout the article--TP]

Commentary

Of course, for Democrats, it is already settled science that we are in a recession, if not an outright depression. I expect that their report on the death of the American Economy is greatly exaggerated, like all those types who have been calling for a Financial Catastrophy since the 1980's.



Dow Jones Industrial Average since 1900.

Read More

Scooter Libby is Free for the Fourth!!!

President George W. Bush has righted a terrible wrong. Huzzah!

“The fact is that had President Bush...had the courage to call Joe Wilson on the carpet...Libby would not be facing jail time today.”

Now, Mr. President:

Free Political Prisoners Ramos, Compeon, Hernandez, and Aleman. There are likely others I am not aware of that US Attorney Johnny "Satan" Sutton has locked up for simply doing their jobs. Free these men!!!

Fire US Attorney Johnny Sutton. This man should be prosecuted for Prosecutorial Misconduct, disbarred, and put in prison.

I found a list on the CNN website of Presidents since FDR with the numbers of Pardons and Sentence Commutations for 11 Presidents. I have computed the average number of each per year as an example to people that this President finishes in 11th out of 11 Presidents for the numbers of each per year of Presidency:

George W. Bush: 6 1/2 years 2001 to July 2, 2007
Pardons: 113...............................................17.38 per yr
Commutations: 4 (including Libby)...........0.62 per year

Bill Clinton: 8 years 1993 to 2001
Pardons: 396.................................................49.5 per year
Commutations: 61......................................... 7.625 per yr

George H.W. Bush: 4 years 1989 to 1993
Pardons: 74.................................................. 18.5 per yr
Commutations: 3 .......................................... 0.75 per yr

Ronald Reagan: 8 years 1981 to 1989

Pardons: 393................................................. 49.125 per yr
Commutations: 13.............................................1.625 per yr

Jimmy Carter: 4 years 1977 to 1981
Pardons: 534..................................................133.5 per yr
Commutations: 29.............................................. 7.25 per yr

Gerald Ford: 3 1/2 years 1974 to 1977
Pardons: 382.....................................................109.14 per yr
Commutations: 22............................................... 6.29 per yr

Richard Nixon: 5 1/2 years 1969 to 1974
Pardons: 863 ........................................................156.91 per yr
Commutations: 60.................................................10.91

Lyndon Johnson: 5 years and change 1963 to 1969
Pardons: 960.........................................................192 per yr
Commutations: 226................................................45.2 per yy

John F. Kennedy: almost 3 years 1961 to 1963
Pardons: 472.........................................................157.33 per yr
Commutations: 100................................................33.33 per yr

Dwight Eisenhower: 8 years 1953 to 1961
Pardons: 1,110......................................................138.75 per yr
Commutations: 47....................................................5.875 per yr

Harry Truman: almost 8 years 1945 to 1953
Pardons: 1,913........................................................239.125 per yr
Commutations: 118..................................................14.75 per yr

These figures are noteworthy, eh?

Read More