Search Results

Statement from ATPAC To see the complete list of State results, see the ncsbe.gov results page here. Most of our endorsed candidates won their primaries. Unfortunately for NC11, this district will be represented by Edwards who consistently votes with Democrats on legislation. This is the same person who engineered the taking of property in Transylvania for a walking path and the same rep who wants to trample on your first amendment rights to assemble. Tillis' crony doesn't cut it. We get what we deserve. Please remember, we are not the GOP. We don't put a political party ahead of our country. We support only those candidates who embrace constitutional principles and protect our inalienable rights. Just an R after a name doesn't cut it either. So, you will not see Edwards on our November ballot. So, this is how it shaped up. We congratulate all of those great patriots who did win. They truly are a great boon to NC. Vote for These Candidates Who Adhere to Constitutional Authority 2024 NC Primary President: Donald Trump NC Gov: Mark Robinson https://www.markrobinsonfornc.com/ NC Lt Gov: Alan Mashburn https://allenmashburn4nc.com/ Primary Winner: Hal Weatherman NC Auditor: Jim Kee https://www.jimkeenc.com/ Primary Winner: Jack Clark NC Commissioner of Agriculture: Steve Troxler https://www.stevetroxler.com/ NC Commissioner of Insurance: Mike Causey https://mikecauseync.com NC Commissioner of Labor: Luke Farley https://www.luke4labor.com/ NC Sec of State: Chad Brown: https://electchadbrown.com/ NC Superintendent of Public Instruction: Michelle Morrow: A Trusted and Proven Conservative. Michele Morrow is the only candidate in the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction with a proven record of winning the fight for conservatism. https://www.morrow4nc.com/ NC Treasurer: Rachel Johnson NC Court of Appeals Judge Seat 15: Chris Freeman: https://chrisfreemanforjudge.com/ Buncombe County Board of Commissioners District 1:  Rondell Lance Primary Winner: Paul Benjamin Henderson County Board of Commissioners District 2: Sheila Franklin Zoning is the big issue. SheilaFranklinforHC.com Henderson County Board of Commissioners District 5: Jay Egolf https://www.egolf4hc.com/home. Jay will protect your property investment with sensible and balanced zoning. If you care about zoning in Henderson, Jay's Your Guy! Henderson County Board of Education: (vote for 4) Kathy G. Revis Beth Campbell Robert Bridges Amy Lynn Holt Paid for by Asheville Tea PAC and not by any candidate or candidates’’ committee. www.ashevilleteapac.org ###

Chuck keeps stepping in it! Two more reasons to send him back to Henderson and to elect Christian Reagan, Our Best Hope to Hold our Federal Government Accountable. Please pay attention. We have another great opportunity to in 2024 to assure that we have a government Of, By and For the People. Christian Reagan for Congress in 2024 https://www.reaganforcongress.com/ * Chuck Edwards is just one of Thom Tillis’s cronies on the ballot in March. Send him home! * More Bad News For Chuck. This Time from WLOS. More evidence that Chuckie was a big mistake! Edwards' Horrid Voting Record. He consistently votes with Democrats on legislation that becomes law. Tax Relief Bill for American Families and Workers is Welfare On Steroids for Illegals. Arrogance Defines NC11 Congressman. We The People Deserve Better. Why ATPAC No Longer Support Edwards.

How the first amendment has been completely supressed on the internet. Deep state State Department and Pentagon through DHS determined 2020 Presidential election. Mind blowing Tucker Carlson interview https://t.me/tuckercarlsonchannel/2039

https://joehoft.com/georgia-house-votes-to-have-official-watermarks-on-all-ballots-in-election-to-prevent-counterfeiting/ Georgia’s House voted to have all ballots have watermarks that will prevent them from being counterfeited in future elections. It’s being reported that the Georgia State House voted to add security to ballots used in their elections. Georgia voters could see a watermark on their ballot beginning in November, a move Republican supporters said would assure citizens that their ballots are authentic.The House on Wednesday voted 167-1 for House Bill 976, sending it to the Senate for more debate.

Attend the Commissioners' Meeting 1 Historic Courthouse Sq. Suite 1 Hendersonville, NC 28792, Wednesday, February 21, 2024 @9:30AM. Sign up to speak. Come to support. It's your county. You need to save it! Paid for by Asheville Tea PAC and not by any candidate or candidates’ committee. www.ashevilleteapac.org https://www.blueridgenow.com/story/opinion/2024/02/17/weintraub-not-too-late-to-change-the-road-were-on/72587982007/ If I owned a GPS that could give driving directions and advise me on what direction the county was moving in, it would be squawking right now in a loud digital voice: “Make a U-Turn, The Road You’re On Is Closed!” Despite what our incumbent commissioners running for reelection say, Commissioners Andreotta and Hill, the last few years have not been a picnic for most residents of Henderson County. In many ways, our rural communities have been under attack from inappropriate development that threatens their way of life and their area’s natural heritage. Crab Creek and East Flat Rock won stellar victories to prevent a major storage facility and asphalt plant from destroying their communities. But how many communities can afford to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to defend their neighborhoods? And even in winning, they are in no better position to fight the next one when another misguided developer comes knocking on their doors. Or yours. Ditto for Etowah and their battle to maintain the sanctity of their community against a major development, the Macedonia community that fended off a shooting range, and Edneyville that might see their rural character wiped off the map if a major sewer system is built which, like flies to honey, will bring a swarm of developers turning farmland into asphalt land. There is a better way, but not much time to get there before it's clear we’re at the end of the road.  We have the opportunity to take the driver’s seat by doing two simple things. The first is vote the commissioners out who have stood against land conservation and vote in more conservation-minded people, like Jay Egolf and Sheila Franklin. The second: Let your voice be heard by attending (and/or writing) commissioners at the upcoming public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan proposal and tell them Just Say No! I dusted off my old copy of the 2020 Comp Plan, the one the county is currently supposed to be following. In a citizen’s survey taken in 2004 over 65% of us said 1) agriculture and open space should be protected, 2) growth should be directed away from floodplains, 3) large commercial development should be located where sewer and water services are present and be environmentally responsible. In the recent citizen’s survey for the 2045 Comp Plan, an overwhelming majority said protecting open spaces and forests, preserving farmland, and conserving unique natural areas was their most important priority. (Notice the pattern here?) Why is the Comp Plan important? Every land-use decision the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners make are supposed to be based on the guidance of the Comp Plan. If it provides few protections that we, the people, have declared in countless surveys, public hearings and forums, then the will of the development community, not the will of the people, will ultimately triumph. So, what are our concerns? The current plan would expand the Utility Service Area into rural communities, which would rapidly accelerate the loss of farmland and foster massive development, turning what’s left of rural communities into suburban sprawl. Its failure to address protecting floodplains and creating limits on building on steep slopes would endanger everyone living or working down slope or near floodplains, as we’ve seen in recent volatile rainstorms. Previous Commissioners responded to citizens concerns by creating a 2020 Comp Plan that emphasized growth should be focused where existing utilities are located. In other words, building a new sewer in Edneyville, encouraging inappropriate development in Etowah and more would be discouraged. The current Comp Plan proposal provides no such guidance, meaning that every neighborhood is forced to “lawyer up” because they can’t count on the county to respect their rural character. The 2020 Comp Plan also discouraged building on steep slopes, building in floodplains, and keeping the Urban Services Area out of rural areas. These were eliminated in the 2045 proposal. Clearly the 2045 Comp Plan proposal takes a giant step backwards. We have no choice but to tell our commissioners in no uncertain terms a resounding NO. Do not pass this poorly developed plan. Give a newly elected Board of Commissioners a chance to conform the plan to the people’s will. Keep out of our floodplains, steep slopes and rural communities. Sprawl turns precious farmland into development land, forestland into dollar store havens and threatens water quality and costs taxpayers dearly. The 2045 Comp Plan proposal is a recipe for just this. Your choice is simple. Re-take the steering wheel and attend the Feb. 21 Comp Plan public hearing at the Historic Courthouse at 9:30 a.m. and tell the commissioners NO to the current Comp Plan. And vote out our incumbent commissioners who would rather sell our county than protect it. To write commissioners or find out if they postponed the public hearing, visit www.hendersoncountync.gov/boc. David Weintraub is a cultural preservationist who can be reached at SaveCulture.org or 828-692-8062. Vote Jay Egolf and Shelia Franklin to turn this around.

https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/so/faOsZe5Rq?languageTag=en&cid=b42b1249-9e4c-4e50-8416-1b5e57863616 Please vote for these candidates who have demonstrated that they adhere to constitutional authority. There are Rs out there that vote with Ds most of the time. We don't support them and neither should you if you want to save this nation. ATPAC 2024 Primary List of Conservative NC Statewide Candidates Henderson County's 2024 ATPAC Constitutionally Conservative Primary Candidates Buncombe County's 2024 ATPAC Constitutionally Conservative Primary Candidates

NCSBE Attorney Paul Cox tries to paint observers as being involved in incidents of intimidation, harassment and even threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers. There's ot one shred of evidence. Watch the video and notice his body language. He doesn't look straight into the camera. https://rumble.com/v4b3nd9-voting-machine-rules-nc-state-board-of-elections.html So, we need to submit another Public Records request to our local Board of Elections to once again prove the corrupt NCSBE wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Threat Report Sample FOIA Pursuant to (Your state FOIA/Open Records statute), I am making the following request. Since early in 2021, Election Officials and the Media have been reporting a dramatic increase in incidents of intimidation, harassment and even threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers. Please provide any documentation and reports of any incidents of intimidation, harassment and threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers in your office. Please include any reports that were submitted to local and/or state law enforcement. Additionally, please provide any documentation and reports of any incidents of intimidation, harassment and threats of violence against Election Officials and Workers that were submitted to the DOJ Election Task Force, the FBI Election Hot line and the DHS-CISA Election Incident Reporting System. Date Range: 1/1/21 – Present

S747 in SECTION 2. G.S. 163-22 is amended by adding two new subsections to read: " (t) The State Board shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis." SECTION 4. G.S. 163-33 is amended by adding two new subdivisions to read: " County boards of elections shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis. This subdivision does not prohibit the following in-kind donations: a. Use of a voting site, if that voting site is used for the purpose of conducting elections. b. Food or beverages for precinct officials or other workers at the voting place or county board of elections office. c. Ink pens and personal protection equipment to be used in an election." Center for Tech and Civic Life Federal Funding Scheme FEMA “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) Grants 2020 - The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a Left-Wing, Non-Profit received a $350 Million “Donation” from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, and distributed it to 2,500 Election Offices. Ninety percent of the funds went to jurisdictions that Biden won. 2021 - Citizen outcry against outside funding and influence in elections led to thirty state legislatures passing statutes to ban these activities, known as “Zuck Bucs” bans. Six Democrat governors vetoed these bills. With two veto overrides and a constitutional amendment, there are now twenty-seven states with “Zuck Bucs” bans. 2022 - To influence elections, and circumvent the “Zuck Buc” bans, CTCL formed the US Alliance for Election Excellence, with an $85 Million grant from The Audacious Project. The scheme involved naming “Centers of Election Excellence”, and offering grants and/or “Alliance” membership. 2023 - CTCL named 16 of these “Centers” in 11 states, awarding $13 Million and $5 Million in 11 grants, to locations won by Biden and Trump, respectively. The CTCL legal team was able to come up with a plan to circumvent the “Zuck Bucs” bans in Dekalb County, GA and Coconino County, AZ. Once again, there was citizen outcry about this new scheme. Out of the original 16 “Centers”, 3 refused the grants, 3 turned down the membership, and 2 have cancelled their membership. The goal of the Left is massive federal funding of elections. In 2021 CTCL, with the Center for Safe and Modern Elections, formed the Election Infrastructure Initiative, working with Democrats in Congress to get $10 Billion for Election Offices. Thankfully, this plan has not been successful. 2024 - CTCL has announced their latest scheme to secure federal funding by assisting Election Officials to apply for FEMA “Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities” (BRIC) Grants. They will be hosting a series of Webinars with a Federal Funds expert to conduct this training. Today, CTCL held their first Webinar. Dan Meuse, from Princeton and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, explained that the goal of this $700 Million program is to reduce spending on disasters by investing in hazard mitigation. He never made the direct connection with these goals to election offices. He suggested possible projects, like the risk to election equipment and ballot storage in a flood zone, risk of losing power in an area that is susceptible to severe storms, risk of disruption in transportation and damage caused by wildfires. The grants cover building disaster mitigation capacity, projects to increase resilience and project management costs. FEMA will accept 1 application, of consolidated local applications, per state, each sub-app is 75 pages. There is a 25% Match, 10% for a “Disadvantaged Community”, and a cost analysis. The deadline is February 29, with decisions in August. The CTCL host said, watch for notices for future federal grant webinars. Our “Action Items” are to attend the webinars and report on the content to grassroots organizations, conservative media and appropriate Congressional Committees. We must expose and stop this scheme. Ned Jones Citizens Research Project                                                                                                                                                                     Election Integrity Network                                                                                                                            ned@electionintegrity.network January 25, 2024 NCSBE Numbered memo 2024-01 "In addition, a county board may accept a monetary donation or in-kind contribution if the funds will not be used for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis.  Examples of such donations or contributions: * Costs for attending professional development conferences that may include events discussing topics pertaining to elections. * An elections professional organization or service provider providing best-practice guides or presentations to county staff on various elections procedures. * Assistance designing communication tools that are not directly facilitating a process integral to carrying out an election. For example, a non-profit organization could provide a tutorial to a county board of elections on how to make its website more accessible to disabled individuals." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I fail to see how these permissible uses match up with the intent of the NCGA's prohibition on monetary and non-monetary contributions from private organizations as stipulated in S.L. 2023-140, Section 4 (NCGS 163-33)... "(18) County boards of elections shall not accept private monetary donations or in-kind contributions, directly or indirectly, for conducting elections or employing individuals on a temporary basis. This subdivision does not prohibit the following in-kind donations: a. Use of a voting site, if that voting site is used for the purpose of conducting elections. b. Food or beverages for precinct officials or other workers at the voting place or county board of elections office. c. Ink pens and personal protection equipment to be used in an election." Just another case of quibbling by the NCSBE.  Looks as if our "anti-Zuckbucks provision needs additional clarification.  (This is why we need your task forces up and running in every county!) Jim

Representative Jackson; Sir, today the North Carolina State Board of Elections managed to push through three temporary rules that were clearly beyond the scope of S747 (S.L. 2023-140) during today's Rules Review Commission hearing.  All three rules were aimed at constraining (even challenging for arbitrary & capricious purposes) our poll observers, making it easy for discretionary dismissal of PO's from voting sites.   They did this despite our strongest objections orally and in writing. Unfortunately, the RRC has little authority to address the qualitative aspects of these rules, and the NCSBE General Counsel exploits that technicality at every hearing, even sometimes reminding the RRC they have little or no authority to constrain what the agency does.  This wanton exploitation of our election laws is disturbing and deserves aggressive action in olur legislature in the upcoming session. I pray the NCGA will gird up for the short session and address the priority issues we have documented over the past year.  S747 dealt with several, but we have a half dozen other loopholes or deficiencies in law that could easily be addressed if the will of our legislators were aligned.  (During the 2023 long session, we experienced more movement in the Senate than we did in the House.) We are presently drafting language that would go a long way towards closing some of the most exploited statutory loopholes. Beginning right after the March primary, we will make our subject matter experts available to you to provide that language, briefings, and documentary evidence to justify each proposed legislative change.  I am confident we can make these proposals move in the Senate as well.  (We have a couple of trusted legislators there as well.) Please let us know if you can think of any special visits or presentations we might accomplish to improve our ability to strengthen election integrity in NC this session. Warm Regards/ Jim Womack President, NC Election Integrity Team www.nceit.org Tel. (919) 770-4783 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NCEIT'S OBJECTIONS TO THESE PROPOSED RULES FOR POLL OBSERVERS Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (Challenge to the Appointment of an Observer) *Inappropriately consolidates the challenge rule for Board of Election members and Judges into one rule instead of separate rules with unique procedures for each * The rule fails to articulate what constitutes specific reasonable grounds for challenging a poll observer’s appointment as outlined in § 163-45.1 (f) of S.L. 2023-140. * For a challenge hearing to follow due process and to comport with the intent of § 163-45.1 (c), the hearing must be convened in advance of the scheduled period of poll observation service. *The rule fails to establish criterion for Boards of Election to use in adjudicating challenges and fails to indicate whether a unanimous vote or a majority vote is required to uphold the challenge. * It seems appropriate for the NCSBE only to adjudicate appeals of challenges to state party- or statewide candidate-appointed poll observers. Appeals from county level are superfluous. *The proposed rule lacks discussion of permanent or persistent challenge of a poll observer; nor are there any criteria for preventing a challenged poll observer from returning for poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle. Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0102 (Appeal of Removal of an Observer from a Voting Site) *The removal of an appointed poll observer is a serious step that potentially leaves a party or candidate blind to the activities inside a voting enclosure. *This rule should prescribe an escalation process that serves due process and maintains election integrity. *The rule should first establish a process for an informal hearing by all three judges present to prevent partisan influence on the decision to expel an observer, short of law enforcement action (which is always an option at the discretion of the Chief Judge). *The appointing authority should be noticed the poll observer has allegedly violated statutory guidelines and will be subject to an immediate informal hearing in or near the voting enclosure, away from the voting process. * If all three judges at a precinct or early voting site concur that removal is the appropriate recourse, then the local appointing authority should be afforded the ability to replace the observer. *If a ruling is not unanimous to remove an observer during the informal hearing, the observer should be allowed to remain on-site, subject to close observation by the judges. * If a poll observer is removed during the hearing, a written record of the removal should be documented, signed off by all judges at the voting site, with a copy provided to the appointing authority. * Appeals of a poll observer’s removal past beyond the informal hearing are fruitless in that the removal has already occurred and cannot be timely reversed. *At early voting sites located within the local Election Office, where there are no judges present, the challenge of a poll observer should come from the Site Administrator, member of the Elections Office, or a member of the Board of Elections. *In poll observer challenges at BOE Early Voting sites, the informal hearing should be adjudicated by the Site Administrator, a senior member of the Elections Office, and one member of the local Board of Elections, available on-call for such purposes. *Nowhere in the statute is there discussion of the possibility for permanent or indefinite removal of a poll observer; nor are there any criteria in thye statute for preventing a removed poll observer from returning for poll observer duties on a subsequent day or at an alternative site during the same election cycle. *The proposed rule should prescribe any criteria that would prevent a removed poll observer from being rescheduled for subsequent duties. (There is little doubt that candidates or political parties will seek to reinstate any removed poll observers as soon as possible. Volunteers are difficult to fund and recruit.) *NCSBE should consider setting a threshold of “law enforcement action taken” or “conviction of election violation” as being standards for indefinite or permanent removal of a poll observer. *Just because a person was challenged for removal on one occasion is not justified grounds for his removal for the duration of an election cycle. What if a person was removed because of the party's failure to be properly appoint him to serve the first time. Or what if a person is removed because of a disruptive hacking cough one day, but is healthy for his next scheduled suty? Proposed Rule- 08 NCAC 20 .0103 (Identification of Observers) *The statute clearly indicates the Chief Judge may use reasonable methods to verify the identity of individuals appearing at the voting place to serve as an observer; but the verification of identity process ends when the observer has produced a valid ID upon arrival. *There should be no requirement for the poll observer to identify his or her name or political party in a manner visible to voters within the voting enclosure.  Doing so makes the PO vulnerable to targeting by opposing partisans for political gain. *This rule should be deleted as the statute is already clear that Poll Observers are to be identified only by their position or role in the voting enclosure- not by their name or political party.

FLASH ACTION ALERT: 1/31/2024: H.R. 7024: Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/118-2024/h30 H.R. 7024 passed overwhelmingly in the House. Chuck Edwards was one of a 169 Republicans who voted Yes on this bill framed as an income tax credit bill for Americans that is in fact a welfare program for illegals. "In the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act (TRAFWA), 91.5 percent of the “family benefits” are cash welfare, not tax relief for working families."  Heritage Foundation The bill is headed to the U.S. Senate.  Email/call your Senators: Ted Budd and Thom Tillis today and tell them ABSOLUTELY NO on H.R. 7024. You also should call Edwards' office and voice your take on the bill. So what's in this Tax Relief for American Families 2024 bill?? Framed as an income tax credit bill for Americans. it is a welfare program for illegals. It is a massive multi billion dollar bankruptcy bill that will hand billions of our dollars to illegal immigrants to incentivize them to come here and have kids. To make it even worse, the bill lowers the threshold of earned income to get massive checks from the government. Work less and get more! What a deal! Corporate lobbyists and the deep state want illegals to increase their power base. Why? Our country is run by people with access:  big business/lobbyists/focus groups/politicians and bureaucrats who don't care about you and I. DC Swamp is currently running a $2.7 trillion dollar deficit that will bankfupt our country by 2053. So what will your Yes reps tell you? They cancelled a failed Covid-era employee retention credit that has paid out a wasted $230 billlion .  Instead of winding down the program and admitting they screwed up, they labeled it as a $78 billion in savings and handed it to illegals and lobbyists. DC uses accounting tricks to hide the money to give away our hard earned tax dollars. Democrats admit this has been going on for years. Republicans give them a pass. why? They too benefit from the perks from the lobbyists. WHY? Deep state wants illegals here to increase their power base:  corporate lobbyists lobbying for businesses buy off a lot of the people in congress. Email/call your Senators: Ted Budd and Thom Tillis today and tell them ABSOLUTELY NO on H.R. 7024 Hold them accountable. The rest of Congressman Edwards' Voting Record here. ---------------------- Resources________________________________ Heritage Foundation's Analysis:  The Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act: Light on Tax Relief and Heavy on Welfare Expansion https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-tax-relief-american-families-and-workers-act-light-tax-relief-and-heavy-welfare DanBongino Show analysis https://rumble.com/v4ap940-explosive-video-about-biden-and-michelle-obama-surfaces-ep.-2178-02012024.html Paid for by Asheville Tea PAC and not by any candidate or candidates' committee.