For the Tea Partiers looking for Trump items

Check the Buncombe County Republican Headquarters.

They just opened a New Year Around Headquarters at 18G Regent Park Blvd.,-82.582626

Hours: Noon to 5:30, Monday – Friday

Executive Meetings: 4th Monday each month at Headquarters at 6:30pm.

And while there check out the available:

Trump Hats, T Shirts, Buttons/Pins, Flags, Bumper Stickers and coins.


The Enduring Myth of FDR and the New Deal – My seventh-grade son recently wrote a U.S. History paper extolling the virtues of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. “It ended the Great Depression,” he wrote with great certainty. He’s only 12 and parroting what the history texts and his teachers told him.

That’s his excuse. What’s Ken Burns’?

Mr. Burns’ docudrama on the Roosevelts — for those who weren’t bored to tears — repeats nearly all the worn-out fairy tales of the FDR presidency, including what I call the most enduring myth of the 20th century, which is that FDR’s avalanche of alphabet-soup government programs ended the Great Depression. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such lies?

To read more Click here

A thought on Gerrymandering in N.C.

Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating the boundaries of voting districts to favor one party or class.  I feel that no matter what is done to make districts it will always come out in someones mind that it was gerrymandered.  Take for example the racial diversity in North Carolina’s population is split between 69.2% Caucasians, 21.5% *African Americans, 3% other races, 2.6% Asians, 2.4% two or more races, and 1.2% Native North Americans. –  * Note the wrong term African Americans it should be Black in my opinion as I doubt 21.5 were born in Africa.

So I ask just how would you divide up the districts for the numbers to come out in each district to match the numbers above? I will give you an A+ if you can do it. Take your choice the NC Senate or NC House. Or the US Senate or US House. How close can you get to 69.2% Caucasians in each of the 50 districts? How close can you get to 21.5% in each of the 50 districts? And so on? What if, not enough of whites or blacks live any one part of the state to get the numbers right?

There are 50 Districts for the NC Senate and 120 for the NC House.

There are 1 Districts for US Senate and 13 Districts for US House.

Now lets do it by Political Party.   See the State Voter Registration as of March 23, 2019 at

As you can see the numbers jump ALL OVER as to now many of each Party is in each County.  There is as of March 23, 2019: 2,462,486 Democrats, 1,989,744 Republicans, 2,106,991 Unaffiliated, 1,243 Green, 1,328 Constitution, and 36,542 Libertarians.

I ask you how can you get an equal percentage of Democrats, Republicans, Green , Constitution, and Libertarians in a Voting District without maps looking like a bowl of spaghetti?   I am fairly sure no matter how the districts are made someone can claim gerrymandering.

Here is a thought lets throw out the race and party issue and do the an equal amount countries that are contiguous (sharing a common border; touching countries).  For the NC Senate there 50 districts so, that would be 2 unbroken countries per district.  For the NC House there are 120 districts that equals .83% of one country.  And for the US House the percentage for 13 Districts is 7.69% of 100 counties for a district.   That takes out the race and party issue.  People move around all the time and the numbers are in constant change.  What does not change are the districts if you do as suggested in this paragraph.  But, I am sure not everyone will be happy, no matter how it is done.

Did you know?

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, meaning the WHOLE U.S.A. and its Territories. The laws of any State shall not be contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

From the U.S. Constitution – Article I, Section 1.

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The above clearly means that Congress is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws, NOT the Supreme Court. So, does it not make sense that the Supreme Court can only ISSUE opinion? Yes. And opinions are not laws. Only A statement of the Court’s thoughts on a considered subject. Not law.

From the U.S. Constitution – Article VI, clause 2

1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.

From the North Carolina Constitution

NC Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

The legislative power (to make law) of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. No power to make law is given to the Courts or the Judges in the Constitution of the State of North Carolina.

Understanding Citizenship by KrisAnne Hall – Our Founders established the criteria of Natural Born Citizen upon our President for a very important reason. Natural Born Citizen meant, to our framers, a child born of two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of that child.

Notice the words “Parents both” – A natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Citizen by Birth or Naturalization is not the Same as a NATURAL BORN Citizen!

The Twelfth Amendment states, “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.

FEE – In a letter written on March 19, 1944, Ayn Rand remarked: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism. – Ayn Rand

The one thing the Collectivist (Communist, Islamist, Socialist and the UN) have in common is they want a One World Government. And they don’t seem to care which one archives it. – F Brown III

The main points of the Communist platform from the Communist Manifesto, which includes the following ten short term demands: Abolishing ownership of all private property, Establishing system of heavy taxation, Abolishing the right to inherit, Centralizing credit and establishment of a state bank, Centralizing communication and transport with the state, Confiscating all emigrant and rebel property, Extending the means of production to the state, Equalizing liability to all levels of labor, Combining agriculture and manufacturing industries, Establishing a free public education system.

1963 Communist Goals – Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow.

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation’s population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term “government by the people” has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.

The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike. Positioned below the rattlesnake are the words “Dont tread on me”. The flag is named after American general and statesman Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805), who designed it in 1775 during the American Revolution. It was also used by the Continental Marines as an early motto flag. – from

“Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic Law on non-Muslim states.”

The Muslim Brotherhoods goal in America is: Clarion Project – “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was one of 82 groups around the world designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates, placing it in the company of Al Qaeda, Islamic State and others. While CAIR has previously been linked to Hamas, it has held hundreds of meetings with Obama administration on a wide range of community issues and has sought to present itself as a mainstream Muslim organization. –

Food for thought: What makes people think that the insane and criminal will obey laws?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. – The Declaration of Independence

Beware of So-Called Socialist Saviors

According to some Democrats the Green New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and there kind is not socialism. Really? Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. – The meaning of “Public” under Socialism means “The Government”.

The following explains some of their lies. Keep in mind that a good lie includes some truth.

Here is the start of the Green New Deal from Ocasio-Cortez:

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on RESOLUTION Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. Whereas the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 oC’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that— (1) human activity is the dominant cause of ob-served climate change over the past century; (2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;

To read the complete plans 14 pages go to on a Green New Deal.pdf

The following is from

This is the fact sheet and FAQ posted on the morning of February 7, 2019 (and then quickly taken down) from the official Congressional website of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal.


We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so someone else can’t claim this mantle).

This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.

The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will:

§ Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy

§ Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs

§ Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries

§ Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities. § Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:

· A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security

· High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools

· Clean air and water and access to nature

· Healthy food

· High-quality health care

· Safe, affordable, adequate housing

· Economic environment free of monopolies

· Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

There is no time to waste.

o IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by by 40-60% by 2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.

Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.

o When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.

o If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it. o When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership

This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.

o We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen.

o The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost

o This is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a rapid pace – growing our economy

The Green New Deal has momentum.

o 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal

o Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.

o 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution for a select committee

o Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal

o New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers will change by Thursday).

A few more Thoughts on the Communist/Socialist Green New Plan to take over the United States.

The Green New Plan is a blatant communist/socialist take over of the Government and to make America over as they wish. Using the fear mongering of climate change – something that as been happening naturally from the beginning.

The following quotes are taken directly from

1. “upgrading all existing buildings” would mean a complete takeover of ones private property. Not everyone can afford to “upgrade”. So, of course to achieve this goal the government will seize your property.

2. “promoting the international exchange of”of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services ” …..”to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal” Code for One World Government?


3. “ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs” So do you think this just may mean “Federal Government Control”?

4. “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all of the people of the United States” “enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments” sounds just a bit like what the USSR promised it’s people. A complete take over of the economy by the Government. That worked out great for the USSR didn’t it?

5. And if, that is not enough, here is more of the same: (O) “providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care: (where have we heard that before?) (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing: (iii) economic security; ( just as the USSR did) and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

1963 Communist GoalsPromote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow.

U.N.’s Agenda 21 is an international blueprint that outlines actions that governments, international organisations, industries and the community can take to achieve sustainability. These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and on the sustainability of systems of production. The objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life.

The following is from:

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.

The following is from:

One of the great Soviet/Russian deceptions, Wraga wrote, was the idea that humans were changing the climate and that humans could save the earth through socialism. She said, “…protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West.”

In her 1998 article, “Green Cross: Gorbachev and Enviro-Communism,” Wraga, who dropped her last name and wrote under the byline Natalie Grant, explains in detail how the Soviet deception campaign, using the climate as an organizing tool, was developed. It was launched after the so-called collapse of the Soviet state, when Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet president, embarked on an environmental crusade, using the United Nations and other international organizations.

The veteran journalist Wes Vernon wrote about Grant’s research in this area, in an article entitled, “The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare.”

We need to understand that without greenhouse gases which keep in the planets atmosphere our planet would not have relatively livable temperatures of today. “Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C). The concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, has fluctuated naturally over geological time scales. While the mechanisms responsible for these fluctuations are unclear, the temperature of Earth has responded to them by switching between ice age and interglacial conditions, i.e., periods of reduced and increased greenhouse warming.” – Source: NASA .

We also need to keep in mind: According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. … The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. – – “Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”

Check out “Global Warming Revisited” with Ivar Giaever is a physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics.


This link will surprise all of the CO2 people and its is must read for them. ” Did the party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever, the ‘Green New Deal’?  Check out:

Is The Global Temperature Record Credible?  ( Find out the truth about the “DATA”. This link is a real eye opener and a must watch.

The idea that man-kind can fix Climate Change which has been changing way way way before man-kind, is ridiculous and is a HOAX, no matter what the Communist, Socialist, and the U. N. etc. call it, it is about totalitarian control and the loss of the people’s freedom. 

Hot Talk, Cold Science Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate

Synopsis From″

According to proponents of the Global Climate Treaty, a consensus within the scientific community supports the view that human-caused global warming is occurring and that it threatens human health and well-being. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from viewing the existence of global warming as “settled,” most atmospheric scientists and climate specialists hold that the global warming issue should be considered “unfinished business” requiring much further research.

In HOT TALK, COLD SCIENCE: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, astrophysicist S. Fred Singer probes the literature on climate change and lays out the scientific case against the likelihood of an imminent, catastrophic global warming. Theoretical computer models to the contrary, man-made global warming has not been documented. But even if it were to occur, the evidence suggests that it would largely be benign and may even improve human well-being, Singer argues.

Rather than embark on economically destructive policies to solve a problem that to the best of our knowledge does not exist, Singer urges policymakers to adopt a “no regrets” policy of continued research and unimpeded economic growth. We would then have more scientific knowledge, technology, and economic resources with which to confront climate warming, if we ever discover that it is occurring and poses a real threat. But prematurely mandating severe reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would make us—and developing countries, especially—poorer and less able to cope with any future problems.

No Scientific Consensus of Warming

That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.

That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was “probable” and 32 percent “possible.” But 47 percent said “probably not”—far from a consensus.

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

Man-Made Global Warming Not in Evidence

The announced purpose of the Global Climate Treaty is to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” However, this goal is entirely arbitrary because we have no scientific guidance for determining what constitutes a “dangerous interference.” Nor do we have evidence that human activity has had much effect on world climate.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)

While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Would Global Warming Be a Threat?

Given the incessant talk about the purported catastrophes a global warming might cause—severe storms, coastal flooding, increases in mosquito-carried diseases—it sounds strange to hear about benefits from a global warming. Nevertheless, the scientific literature supports the view that increases in CO2 concentration and global temperatures, were they to materialize, might actually improve human well-being. Some benefits include a CO2-enriched biosphere more conducive to plant growth, longer frost-free growing seasons, greater water efficiency for plants, and more available farmland at higher latitudes.

A reduction in severe storms would be another likely benefit if global warming were to occur. Since a global warming would probably mostly warm the latitudes farther north and south, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles would fall, thereby reducing the severity of storms. (Contrary to anecdotal reports, theory and observations indicate that severe storms, both tropical and extratropical, have not increased in the past 50 years. In fact, North Atlantic hurricanes have noticeably declined in frequency and in intensity.)

Rising sea levels, another alleged consequence of a global warming, may also be a phantom problem. It seems likely that a global warming would lower, rather than raise sea levels, because more evaporation from the oceans would increase precipitation and thereby thicken the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. This possibility is supported by an observed inverse correlation between the rate of rise of the sea level and tropical sea surface temperature.

Ocean Fertilization and Economic Resilience

If increases in carbon dioxide concentrations do become a problem, a policy of ocean fertilization—to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and speed up the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean, as recently documented in field testing—seems more prudent (and cheaper) than energy rationing. Ocean fertilization would also likely bring an important side benefit: vast ocean deserts could be turned into thriving fisheries. Developing countries in particular would benefit from this less expensive policy by investing the saved wealth in strengthening the resilience of their economies, safeguarding against naturally occurring harmful climate events, and improving their health care systems.

About the author

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

Nazism is Socialism
11/11/2005George Reisman

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

To read more click on

Beware of So-Called Socialist Saviors

By Fremont Brown III- According to some Democrats the Green New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and there kind is not socialism. Really?

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. – The meaning of “Public” under Socialism means “The Government”.


The following explains some of their lies. Keep in mind that a good lie includes some truth.

To read more

Mark your calendars! Buncombe County Republican Men’s Club Upcoming Speakers are…

Buncombe County Republican Men’s Club
Upcoming Speakers

Mark Delk will be speaking at our March 9th meeting “The Party of Redemption”.

Mark Delk is a native of Transylvania County and a resident of Buncombe County. He has served in numerous roles within the Buncombe County Republican Party including: Precinct Vice-Chairman, Precinct Chairman, Member at Large, Parliamentarian, Chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman of the Nominating Committee and as Chairman of the Buncombe County Republican Party.

Mark presently serves as the Vice Chairman of the 11th District Republican Party. He serves as Chairman of the 11th District’s Rules Committee and has served as a member at large and in various other capacities in the 11th District Republican Party.

Mark also serves as a member of the NCGOP’s Central and Executive Committees and presently and previously has served on the NCGOP’s Rules Committee.

Mark’s primary field of study has been American Government and it’s legal system. Mark holds a Doctoral Degree in Jurisprudence from Wake Forest University and has focused his study heavily on The United States Constitution.

Mark presently holds one of the offices that is mandated in Article 2 of the United States Constitution (That of Presidential elector.) Mark Is the President of North Carolina’s Electoral College.

Henri Erti will be speaking at our April 13th meeting on Communism/Socialism.
Henri was born in Soviet Estonia, but grew up in Finland learning first hand how socialist ideas destroy the moral compass of a society through intellectually corrupt economic ideas.

His main focus is in macroeconomics and political economy. He currently resides in Greenville SC.

He has the following degrees: B.A in Business & Organizational Leadership – Brevard College, N.C and a M.A in International Political Economy – Dubrovnik International University, Croatia.


We meet the second Saturday of each month at the Ryan’s, 1000 Brevard Road, Asheville, NC 28806.

Breakfast 8:30 am, Meeting 9 am

Supreme Court Can Not Make Law

From the U.S. Constitution – Article I, Section 1.
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The above clearly means that Congress is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws, NOT the Supreme Court. So, does it not make sense that the Supreme Court can only ISSUE opinion? Yes. And opinions are not laws. Only A statement of the Court’s thoughts on a considered subject. Not law.

From the U.S. Constitution – Article VI, clause 2
1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.

How Governments can increase revenue

When your government officials tell you that they MUST raise your taxes to furnish you the tax payer with government services that you may or may not need or wish, they are not telling you the truth. The truth is that to INCREASE REVENUE for Government Services, and its been proven time and time again, you must LOWER the TAX RATE. Not Raise it. Here is fact: In the 1920’s tax rates were slashed from over 70% to less then 25%. Guess what happen, revenue to the government substantially increased – by more then 60%. During the 1980’s Reagan proposed tax reductions. Tax revenues increased by 99.4%. And the lies that the top 10% of earners or “the Rich” pay less is also not true. When the tax rates were lower during the Reagan times the top 10% tax payers taxes increased by as much as 27.5% in 1988.

Preparing for North Carolina’s Future

Buncombe County has 3 Socialist/Democrat House members and 1 Socialist/Democrat Senate member that did not score over a 40 on Civitas Action NC Freedom 2018 rankings. The highest score is 100. Their score of 40, 40, and 33.3 are some of the lowest scores in the House. In the Senate the one Socialist/Democrat member scored a 25, making that member the LOWEST scorer in Civitas rankings. This is not good for Buncombe County. To top off the problem Republicans hold the Majority in both the House and the Senate. Meaning that the 3 Socialist/Democrat House members and 1 Socialist/Democrat Senate member have NO WAY of getting a bill they wish to become law a law. They are USELESS to Buncombe County. Is it not time to replace them with Republicans? The Republican Party has proven that they can put the States budget and the economy in Great Shape. And in doing so is Preparing for North Carolina’s Future. Isn’t time Buncombe County help them to continue doing so by voting for Republicans? I hope your answer is a big YES.

By securing our elections with Voter Photo ID we move forward by stopping the proven illegal voting in North Carolina. According to a February poll run by Civitas, 69% of NC voters support voter ID. North Carolina can join 34 other states in our nation by adding a Voter Photo ID Amendment to our Constitution. Voter Photo ID will instill confidence that your vote COURTS. People will have more faith that the voting results are the TRUE voice of the People. Yes, voting for the Voter Photo ID Amendment is a great step going forward into the future.

Here is just SOME key provisions of the 2018-2019 North Carolina budget For Education:

• Increases funding for public education by nearly $700 million.
• Fully funds K-12, community college and public university enrollment growth.
• Provides $35 million for school safety initiatives, including new grant programs to support students in crisis, school safety training, safety equipment and youth mental health personnel.
 Invests an additional $11.9 million in textbooks and digital resources, bringing the total annual state funding for textbooks to $73.9 million – a $71.4 million increase from the last Democrat-authored budget.
 Directs additional lottery funds toward grants to economically struggling, rural counties to assist with critical public school building needs.
 Maintains smaller class sizes in core academic subjects and keeps a new salary allotment for kindergarten through fifth grade program enhancement teachers – like music, art and physical education – beginning next school year.
 Increases funding to Eastern North Carolina STEM.
 Doubles the number of local school districts eligible to participate in the “TA to Teacher” program that helps teacher assistants receive training to become teachers.
 Protects the Read to Achieve, Teach for America, and Communities in Schools programs from being cut by the Department of Public Instruction.
 Allocates close to $15 million to community colleges for workforce training programs.
• Fully funds the N.C. Promise Program, which guarantees in-state undergraduate students at three schools across the state pay just $500 per semester for tuition.
 Includes new funding for medical education, including funding increases to the UNC School of Medicine’s Asheville campus.
• Increases funding for Children with Disabilities Scholarship Grants by more than $3 million to reduce the wait list.
Yes, North Carolina Republicans are preparing North Carolina for the Future. I hope your choice at the Polls are Republicans and YOU help prepare North Carolina for the Future.

How the Myth of the ‘Robber Barons’ Began—and Why It Persists

Fee – The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.

The widely-accepted “history” of America’s Gilded Age was grossly inaccurate, but it told a compelling story that many fell for hook, line, and sinker.

Culture Gilded Age Robber Barons History Marxism Myths

Note from the President: Burton W. Folsom is more than just my favorite historian. He’s also one of my very best friends. So I admit to some personal bias when I endorse his classic book, The Myth of the Robber Barons, as I’ve done on dozens of occasions. But even if I didn’t know him or didn’t like him, I would still say that it’s one of the best, most insightful books on American business and political history of the last century. The distinction he draws out between “market entrepreneurs” and “political entrepreneurs” has permanently altered historical interpretations of a crucial era in our past—for the better and with increasing effect as the years have gone by since the book’s first edition in 1991.

Now, a new edition—the eighth—makes its appearance with a new final chapter, excerpted here. What you’ll read below is about a third of that chapter, but it’s an excellent sample. Here, Dr. Folsom explores the question of how and why so many historians get the “robber baron” era precisely wrong, with a special focus on the deleterious impact of Matthew Josephson and his error-filled but influential book from the 1930s.

— Lawrence W. Reed, President, Foundation for Economic Education

Capitalism Worked, but We Were Told It Didn’t

We study history to learn from it. If we can discover what worked and what didn’t work, we can use this knowledge wisely to create a better future. Studying the triumph of American industry, for example, is important because it is the story of how the United States became the world’s leading economic power. “Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.

The years when this happened, from 1865 to the early 1900s, saw the U.S. encourage entrepreneurs indirectly by limiting government. Slavery was abolished and so was the income tax. Federal spending was slashed and federal budgets had surpluses almost every year in the late 1800s. In other words, the federal government created more freedom and a stable marketplace in which entrepreneurs could operate.

To some extent, during the late 1800s—a period historians call the “Gilded Age”—American politicians learned from the past. They had dabbled in federal subsidies from steamships to transcontinental railroads, and those experiments dismally failed. Politicians then turned to free markets as a better strategy for economic development. The world-dominating achievements of Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, and Charles Schwab validated America’s unprecedented limited government. And when politicians sometimes veered off course later with government interventions for tariffs, high income taxes, anti-trust laws, and an effort to run a steel plant to make armor for war—the results again often hindered American economic progress. Free markets worked well; government intervention usually failed.

Why is it, then, that for so many years, most historians have been teaching the opposite lesson? They have made no distinction between political entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed through federal aid, and market entrepreneurs, who avoided subsidies and sought to create better products at lower prices. Instead, most historians have preached that many, if not all, entrepreneurs were “robber barons.” They did not enrich the U.S. with their investments; instead, they bilked the public and corrupted political and economic life in America. Therefore, government intervention in the economy was needed to save the country from these greedy businessmen. To read more click here.

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘New Deal’ Is Closer to National Socialism than Democratic Socialism

FEE – Senator Warren is proposing “the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less.”
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Barry Brownstein

In an episode of the HBO comedy series Crashing, libertarian Penn Jillette offered this provocative opinion:

The most important revolution in human history, more important than agriculture, more important than writing, is the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution came down to these three words: I don’t know.

Jillette added, “No institution, no church, no king, no power structure had ever said in history, I don’t know.”

The Greek historian Thucydides put it this way: “Ignorance is bold, knowledge reserved.”

It’s hard to find a politician willing to say, “I don’t know.” Senator Elizabeth Warren is no exception. Her ignorance is bold. Recently she proposed The Accountable Capitalism Act. Under her proposed law, Warren and others in government will pretend to know much about that which they know nothing—running every large business in America.
The Accountable Capitalism Act

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senator Warren urges Americans to insist “on a new deal.” Under her Accountable Capitalism Act,

Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.

Click here to read more.

The US federal government still strongly pushes corn- and soy-based ethanol despite the EPA’s new study showing its harmful effects.

FEE – hen the elected officials and bureaucrats who run a government want to stack the deck in favor of a politically connected special interest, they have three main ways that they can go about it:

They can subsidize the special interest, often using taxpayer cash.
They can penalize the competition of the special interest, often through tariffs.
They can mandate that people do business with the special interest.

Each of these actions is economically harmful as government-backed subsidies, penalties, and mandates all impose unnecessary costs on regular people. Worse, they often lead to predictable, if often unintended, consequences that do serious damage beyond what they do to personal finances.

In the case of ethanol in the United States, the federal government has employed all three measures over the years, frequently with bipartisan political support. Its subsidies keep afloat politically connected businesses that wouldn’t otherwise be able to keep themselves in business. Its tariffs have kept consumers from being able to buy cheaper sources of ethanol on the global market. And its mandate to put an increasing amount of corn-based ethanol into fuel makes food more expensive.

As an example of an unintended-yet-predictable consequence, it turns out that those actions by the U.S. government to push ethanol production and use in the United States are doing serious damage to the environment. The Daily Caller‘s Jason Hopkins reports on a new study from the Environmental Protection Agency: Click here to read more.

6 Interviews with Republican Candidates from – Please, spread far and wide.

Mark Crawford, Republican Candidate for NC Senate 49

Glenda Weinert, Republican Candidate for Buncombe County Commission

Amy Evans, Republican Candidate for NC House 115

NC State Senator Chuck Edwards

Marilyn Brown, Republican Candidate for NC House 116

Shad Higgins, Candidate for Buncombe County NC Sheriff

The Solution to Poverty Is Opportunity, Not Charity

FEE – Treating symptoms is not enough. When we fall ill, our bodies give us symptoms to signal to our brains that trouble is afoot. A fever, for example, lets us know that our body is working in overdrive to fight off some sort of infection. While it may be causing us tremendous discomfort, we know that the fever itself is not the real problem, but rather a symptom of a greater problem that is about to manifest itself.

But if we are in search of lasting relief, we must first discover what is causing the fever in the first place. Sure, we can try to mask the discomfort by using aspirin or ibuprofen, but this relief is conditional and only lasts for so long. Unless the root causes are identified and treated, the symptoms will come back as soon as the medicine wears off.

Many charities and organizations perpetuate this cycle by focusing only on treating the symptoms of poverty, completely ignoring the root causes.

When put in terms of our health, recognizing that symptoms are merely consequences of a bigger problem but not the actual disease seems obvious. But many fail to see how this principle translates into other realms in life. Poverty, for example, is a vicious cycle with many observable symptoms. Starvation, lack of clean drinking water, and insufficient housing are all symptoms of poverty, but they are not the cause.

Click here to read more.