There are three stages to a liberal’s argument: the first is an attempt to throw vague facts and skewed information, the second is when they attempt to tug at your heartstrings and make you feel guilty, and the third stage is to call you a racist. Having spent the past few months trying to ram a socialist healthcare “reform” bill down America’s throat, the Left has found that America is more resistant to Obama’s “change” than they had anticipated. In response to this sudden surge in American values against liberal healthcare policies, the Left has been scrambling to try to slow the gushing hemorrhaging of their universal healthcare bill by calling the town hall protests “staged,” “unrepresentative,” “misinformed,” and of course, “racist.”

This is exemplified by former President Jimmy Carter’s recent interview with NBC’s Brian Williams in which he called the resistance to Obama’s healthcare reform racially motivated. As though somehow the mass gatherings to protest Obama’s tax-and-spend liberalism were in fact mass, hidden meetings of the Ku Klux Klan. It strikes me as odd that, despite the left’s usage of racism as the reason behind the town hall protests and other resistance to socialism, I have yet to see anything at a town hall meeting resembling the racial slurs scrawled in the Almost Free Expression Tunnel after the 2008 presidential election. In my opinion, we should take Mr. Carter’s word with a little more than a grain of salt… perhaps a bucketful or so. When the greatest failure of a president in the last fifty years (whose economic policies led to a horrendous four years and whose ill-advised defense policies included preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing information about national enemies) says much of anything, everyone should simply ignore him.

And then there is Representative Joe Wilson, another victim of the Left’s racism barrage. During Obama’s speech to Congress defending his healthcare bill, Rep. Joe Wilson R-SC, yelled out “You lie!” after Obama stated that his bill would not cover illegal aliens. While Representative Wilson was undoubtedly correct in his assumption that the Left’s healthcare bill would find a way to give taxpayer money to the illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes by disallowing illegal immigrants but also prohibiting there be a requirement that people show their proof of citizenship, that fact is beside the point. The Left’s response to Wilson’s statement you ask? Why to call him a racist of course. While Wilson may have been out of line in that some obscure rule of the House requires that representatives cannot call one another liars, his statement mentioned nothing about race. Despite this missing race component to Rep. Wilson’s statement, the left burst into frenzy about how racist Wilson was for failing to be swayed to their side by Obama’s speech.

Despite the Left’s vicious slandering of the proud American’s displaying their First Amendment rights at the town hall meetings and the Washington Tea party, the Right should be happy. The fact that liberals have resorted to calling conservatives racists means that the conservatives are making an impact. The liberals are running out of ideas, facts, figures and heartstrings to tug, so now the best they can do is insult us in hope that we run crying to our mothers

By SARAH WOLFE and ADAIR-HAYES CRANE

Hours after chancellor Doctor James Oblinger resigned on June 8, North Carolina State University officials fired former First Lady Mary Easley due to concerns about her position and pay in the University System.

Easley first began working at NC State in April of 2005 when, then Provost, Larry Nielsen created a job for her as manager of a speakers’ series. Nielsen created the job specifically for Easley and did not interview any other candidates. Easley’s starting salary was $90,000 a year.

Board Chairmen McQueen Campbell, a close friend of the Easley’s, was also involved in the hiring of Easley, sending emails to Oblinger asking him to “secure a job” for her.

Campbell has also been known to have often flown Governor Easley around the state and even to fishing trips in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. without reporting the expenses of gas, which exceeded the $4,000 a person can contribute to a campaign. Both Nielsen and Campbell resigned in May.

Easley’s job consisted of full-time hours nine months out of the year and she often spent less than six hours on campus a day, if she was on campus. However, trouble did not begin until last year when the Board of Trustees granted Easley an 88% pay raise, increasing her annual salary from $90,000 to $170,000.

This raise was not originally approved by the UNC system but later, Erskine Bowles, president of the UNC school system, agreed to the raise even though it violated rules of the system.

When North Carolina first began investigating Easley’s job on campus, Oblinger claimed to have nothing to do with the scandal and highly encouraged Easley to step down from her position. She refused, and was later terminated from the university.

However, files found on Oblinger’s computer said otherwise. E-mails between Oblinger and Campbell guaranteeing that the chancellor would secure a job for Easley surfaced and Oblinger claimed to not remember the exchange. After these surfaced, Oblinger stepped down, suffering a major pay cut from his position as chancellor to return to the University as a professor of Food Science.

Then the University appointed the “Interim” Chancellor Jim Woodward, a former chancellor of University of North Carolina at Charlotte and former teacher at NC State.

When Easley’s 88% pay raise surfaced in the public media, negative attention was immediately put on NC State. Since Easley was working for the university, it seems like every official associated with the school had something to do with the pay increase and the creation of Easley’s job.

When it came into the public’s knowledge that Easley was working irregular hours and would only sometimes pick up the phone or order a speaker for the university’s needs, it made it apparent that Easley should resign so that her association with NC State would not further allow the university to receive negative media.

The university officials, however, did act in an appropriate manner in order to take NC State’s image to from negative back to positive in the public eye. Campbell and Nielsen resigned in May 2009. Chancellor Oblinger resigned June 8, 2009. These officials felt that their resignation would be appropriate for the university as a whole so that the situation would be silenced. Since their resignation and with the investigation closed, the university is in the process of building their reputation back up in order to assure that a similar situation does not happen again at NC State.

Since the resignation of Chancellor James Oblinger in June, Interim Chancellor Jim Woodward has taken place of Oblinger. Woodward, who is the former chancellor of University of North Carolina at Charlotte, made significant changes to that campus, and is expected to make such positive changes at NC State as well. When Interim Chancellor Woodward began his work at UNC-C, there were approximately 12,900 students attending the school, by the time he left, there were over 20,000 students after all of the positive changes he made to the school. He also funded for a $350 million dollar building update as well as headed up UNC-C’ becoming a public research school.

After NC State hit the public media with Easley’s investigation about her job at the university, it has been made known that Interim Chancellor Woodward will make much positive change to the school in the middle of this crisis. “Chancellor Woodward will be leading NC State through a challenging period in which it will be rebuilding its leadership team and dealing with difficult budget-related decisions,” according to the alumni website for NC State.

Interim Chancellor Woodward will have a positive effect on this university as he heads the school out of a crisis that has been created over the controversy with Mary Easley’s firing as well as the resignation of Oblinger, Nielsen and Campbell.

Proposed fee increases for building renovations may not be appropriate in light of current economic times, leadership allegations

The Rally 4 Talley campaign is in full swing. With many options and claims being tossed around, students, faculty and staff as well as members of the university community are concerned with the funding and outcomes of this issue. Obviously the Talley Center is outdated and grossly inadequate to meet the current needs of today’s student population. Designed and built in the 1970s, this aging structure shows its wear and has clearly seen better days. It’s not debatable that something needs to be done, but are the board of trustees and elected officials really looking out for our best interests?

The most critical problem related to the Talley project is funding. Raising taxes via additional student fees during an economic downturn is not the best option. Neither is financing this project with millions of dollars in debt that future students will be beleaguered under. Student Body President Jim Ceresnak has said it himself; he is the voice of the students as a student on the NCSU Board of Trustees. However, any dealings with the board of trustees should raise a red flag. Allegations surrounding the Mary Easley scandal and D. MacQueen Campbell, the chairman of the board, remind us again of why government is the problem and not the solution.

Obviously there may be some kickbacks involved, perhaps awarding big contracts to architects and general contractors who may be in on the deal. Knowing that Mr. Campbell is in the real estate field, it would not be uncommon for him to have numerous contacts within the construction and real estate development business. In addition, Mr. Campbell’s actions may be in violation of the rules governing behavior by real estate brokers (GS 93). High-ranking persons of interest in the investigation such as ex-Vice Provost Larry Nielsen may have pushed hard to show preferential treatment to some firms that could stand to profit nicely from a large government contract.

Do we need to saddle future Wolfpackers with mountains of debt? This is not the legacy that we want to leave behind on this wonderful campus. If nothing else, educate yourself on the issue and remember that there are always two sides to every story. The board of trustees’ vote can be swayed and it would be atrocious if the democratic nature of our government were tainted by the illegal dealings of the members. Mary Easley has proven this based on her shady actions surrounding her position and pay raise with the University. This issue deserves a second look because there may have been illegal ties between her and the architects and contractors who stand to gain a lot from this new building. As much as the students would like to have faith in the board of trustees, it is tough given the recent allegations.

There has been commentary on the timing of this renovation, and both sides have valid points. Yes it is true that construction costs are at an all time low because general contractors are anxious to get work. However, the country’s national deficit continues to grow, and do we need to burden future students with the debt from this massive project? The board of trustees must practice and preach financial accountability, and focus on providing a quality education at an economical cost. With tuition and student fees continuing to climb every year, is now really a good idea to add another $83 to the bill, especially at a time when students and families are struggling? The economic downturn affects everyone in some way, and paying for higher education can be tough. Increasing the tuition and effectively taking out a mortgage to pay for the Talley renovations is simply unwise and irresponsible.

So the issue left to be resolved is how to responsibly pay for this new facility. There certainly seems to be some conflicts of interest exhibited by members of the Board of Trustees who are supposed to be making educated decisions, free from bias. This bias may come in the form of close family ties, financial associations or simply a backdoor loan. Until this issue is resolved, we will see bickering from each side. But if you do nothing else, at least read up on the issue and make yourself aware of the future implications. Visit Rally4Talley.com.

By JAKE SIGLER

NC State has had many students pass through its halls to become prominent people in the pop culture of America: in the sports world Philip Rivers and Bill Cower; music John Tesh; comedy Zach Galifinakis; and in the Obama administration Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Yes, the one and only “White House Warrior” Robert Gibbs pushing the radical leftist agenda set forth by the forty-fourth Presidential Administration.

Though born and raised in Auburn, Alabama, Robert Gibbs graduated from State in 1992 Cum Laude with a degree in political science. Gibbs in his college years was a State athlete playing goalie the soccer team. However, the once-sporty Gibbs now resembles the likeness of the Pillsbury Doughboy and not a star Wolfpack athlete. This former shining example of excellence in NCSU education currently resides as the main Kool-Aid distributer of the left and primary spinner for the Obama cabinet.

So, what of Pop and Fresh’s job performance thus far as the Wolfpack’s chief representative in the current White House? Well, his terrible showing is in part due to the administration. Mr. Gibbs is the main target of the questioning by the media on everything from Czars to Acorn. The job of this Press Secretary is unprecedented with the amount of controversy and cronyism in the current Presidency.

However, the State Puff Marshmallowman look alike refuses to shoot the media and America straight as he merely manipulates statements and refers to liberal-progressive talking points that have been heard by the masses for years. With an economy in peril, a vigorous healthcare debate, and two wars being fought abroad, Gibbs seems to be thrown off track muttering the same phrases day in and day out: “What Biden meant to say was…”, “the President misspoke”, “Cost will go down with choice and competition”, and “the previous administration left…” Far from the answers that the American public deserve to hear.

A person can go through quote after quote of Mr. Gibbs to gain an overall perception of him as a Press Secretary, but there are a few examples to show how he truly is as the Hermes of the Obama White House. The first incident involving Major Garret of Fox News, which has been renowned as the singular cable network that scrutinizes the current presidential administration. Garret questioned Gibbs in a White House press briefing about certain unwanted emails from the White House received by average citizens. At the podium Gibbs replied rudely, dismissing the question all together and not respecting the integrity of the correspondent. Gibbs also recently made a remark about the protesters in Washing D.C. on 9/12 stating, “I don’t know who the group is.” These two cases prove of Gibbs lack of value for the opposite political view and an out of touch perception of the current mindset of the American people.

In a separate occasion reporter John Gizzi’s cell phone went off at a White House briefing to which the Secretary jokingly took the cell phone from the man. In the same conference the cell phone of CBS reporter Bill Plante rang to which Mr. Plate took the phone call in the middle of the briefing, as Gibbs attempted to make a joke of it. To not even turn off a cell phone shows the lack of esteem of the Press Corps and a lack of regard for the Secretary that in truth has been brought upon him do to his own delivery.

Clearly Robert Gibbs has forgotten the lessons that can be learned in his southern upbringing and time at NC State: always be truthful and forthcoming, respect others and gain their respect. Gibbs has so far left a bad impression of the NC State student and the job of the White House Press Secretary, far from the outstanding work done by Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow. There is a glimmer of hope that if this performance continues Gibbs will resign, much like Van Jones, due to the ridicule of his actions. One can only hope for this to occur and Gibbs can bring to an end the mockery of himself and vicariously NC State.

By STEPHEN BOHAM

Our society has taught us, no matter the issue, to never speak ill of the dead. But when our national media chooses to disregard the facts, are we not permitted to challenge such ignorance?

In the days following the death of Ted Kennedy this past August, the American media covered the Senator’s passing as a truly historical event. While some may argue if such attention is actually deserving, the real issue the American public should be addressing is the pathetic display of reporting by our media outlets.

There is no question that Ted Kennedy was an influential figure in shaping American legislation. To his party, he was a role model and an iconic figure. He was regarded as an articulate speaker and with 46 years of service and more than 300 bills enacted into law, he was surely every bit deserving of the nickname “Lion of the Senate”. Obviously you have to also factor in the family name. He is the last Kennedy from a generation that saw his two brothers reach both Capitol Hill and the Oval Office before ultimately being heartlessly assassinated.

But even with that said and the obvious respect you show any man after he passes, the media still has a responsibility to accurately reflect on an American figure, which includes not only his triumphs but his failures as well.

Reporters portrayed Ted Kennedy in a light that would make one question if he was capable of doing anything wrong. “Over five decades, Ted Kennedy carried the torch passed on by his brothers, for civil rights, for the poor, and for the sick,” CBS’s Harry Smith opened with on The Early Show, just hours after Kennedy’s passing. “For nearly half a century in the Senate, Ted Kennedy spoke for the people who had no voice — the poor and the disabled, children and the elderly,” anchor Katie Couric followed with on that night’s CBS Evening News. The following Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer proclaimed the senator as “the classic American hero.” Are we that quick to completely dismiss the Chappaquiddick incident?

This suggests a popularity that simply did not exist. The last time Gallup conducted a poll on Kennedy (2008) his favorable rating stood at 40%. Even earlier this month, with the news of his illness already made public, his rating only marginally increased.

Then CBS struck again. Anchor Maggie Rodriguez commented that Ted Kennedy lived a “life that was able to bring friends and enemies together.”

While there is obviously no debate that Kennedy had friends on both sides of the aisle, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who would associate him with bipartisanship. Sure Kennedy was intelligent and charismatic with the other side when he needed to be, but only when attempting to further his own cause. Make no mistake about it, Ted Kennedy was a liberal’s liberal. He advocated for bigger government, higher taxes and increased dependency every step of the way—and never budged.

The networks cast every law Kennedy passed as an achievement. This is true—if you’re liberal. In 2004, when Ronald Reagan died the media coverage came from both angles shedding light on his achievements and honoring his legacy while also noting mistakes that shaped his image as well. What makes a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts so deserving of this overwhelming praise?

The media has a responsibility to inform its citizens of the news. Some praised and loved Senator Kennedy, but more than their fair share saw his left wing agenda as being very detrimental to the American dream. If the media ever gets over being star-struck maybe factual news will replace the current widespread propaganda. Don’t hold your breath!

With all the recent talk of universal healthcare and more government, it is no question that a larger, more intrusive government is being unveiled in this country. It would appear that bigger government has its eyes on a familiar target; the rights of citizens to ownership of firearms. This past January a bill sponsored by Illinois Congressmen Bobby Rush was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill, known as H.R. 45 or “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act,” bears many concerns for legally abiding gun owners.

The new bill would require all individuals who wish to purchase a firearm to follow a lengthy and prohibitively obtrusive application process. This process includes, but is not limited to, a passport size photo of the individual, any nickname that the individual has ever been known by, a clear thumb print of the individual, a certificate attesting that the individual will keep any firearm owned by the individual safely out of anyone who is not 18 years old, and a certificate attesting to the completion of a written fire arms application.

The bill would give the Attorney Generals of each respected state unprecedented power. According to the bill, “the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearms products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.” The bill never mentions the words warrant or probable cause in order to conduct one of these inspections.

Another drawback of this bill is the enormous amount of paperwork and governmental red tape that will result. With the United States already in possession of a nearly 12 trillion dollar debt, how will all these new administrative jobs be funded? The only way it seems feasible is to continue to spend our way into more debt.

While some gun laws are necessary, this bill appears to be nothing more than the government seeking to further expand its influence into the lives of law abiding citizens. It is nothing more than a trounce on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This bill will not affect the criminals that are currently breaking the law anyway. Criminals will continue to break the law and obtain possession of firearms illegally.

Our Founding Fathers knew that fair gun rights were vital to maintaining a sense of balance in this country because at great cost, they had just finished defending individual rights from an overbearing tyrannical government. Let us keep that balance from being eroded.