Video: Edwards drops out of the November race. Ethics violations https://wlos.com/newsletter-daily/north-carolina-rep-edwards-withdraws-re-election-campaign-jamie-ager-house-ethics-committee-allegations-sexual-misconduct?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&sfmc_id=8367836&utm_guid=30b980e41fe11fe84d8a9d4713c006bd6f20717841089ad50acb987f451f14e4&utm_campaign=HeadlinesNewsletter NC11 District Chair, Merry Guy, to pick his replacement. (So, will the GOP give us another RINO or a Patriot? Humm. We keep giving the folks great candidates and the GOP puts their fingers on the scale to give us compromised individuals. This is such an old story. So, now Chuck can go back to his globalist friends at the Chamber of Communists (aka Commerce). You will recognize their building with many offensive flags above their doorway. Only ONE flag counts but OUR flag is just one of many. Disgraceful.) House ethics committee recommends censure of Edwards. https://www.hendersonvillelightning.com/news/16223-ethics-committee-recommends-censure-of-edwards.html?utm_source=Hendersonville+Lightning&utm_campaign=6ab7347ebc-lightning_rss_email_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ad9761b65a-6ab7347ebc-425233222 The House Committee on Ethics is recommending the censure of U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards for numerous instances of alleged sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior or unprofessional interactions with two young female staffers. "Specifically, the Committee found that Representative Edwards engaged in persistentunprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers," the committee said Monday. "While Representative Edwards denied that any of his conduct was intended as a sexual or romantic advance, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable observer to interpret it as such, including providing the young women with lavish and recurrent gifts, making comments regarding their appearance and dress, inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations, sending notes regarding his effusive affection, and inviting them to other activities as a way to spend time together." In a 15-page response to the report, Edwards' attorneys argued that the committee's findings “exonerate” the congressman, pointing to the conclusion that he did not engage in sexual activity or explicitly proposition any staff member. His attorneys said the recommendation of censure was an “extraordinarily harsh and infrequent punishment” that is based on vague standards and adherence to the spirit of House rules, “not based on a direct violation of House rules addressing sexual misconduct.” Edwards, 65, may now be heading for the most severe form of punishment the House can impose on one of its members short of expulsion at the same time he is fighting for re-election against the strongest Democratic nominee he has faced in his two terms. Here are excerpts from the committee report: The Committee found no evidence that Representative Edwards engaged in sexual activity with or explicitly propositioned any individual under his employ. Representative Edwards was aware, however, that his excessive attention toward the young women had led to rumors and innuendo in the office. Both women were uncomfortable with his behavior (which they attempted to communicate) but were put in an untenable position by virtue of his status as their boss and a member of Congress. Representative Edwards was at minimum blind to that reality, and at worst, dismissive of the impact his inappropriate conduct had on the careers and wellbeing of two women on his staff. When he transitioned from the North Carolina Senate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Edwards delegated most of his hiring to his Chief of Staff but brought three young women who had worked with him in the State Senate to continue working with him in the House, including a woman who was still in college (Staffer 1), and another in her early 20s (Staffer 2). As discussed below, both young women were subject to increasingly unusual attention from the Congressman while they worked for him, creating an environment where both they and their coworkers felt uncomfortable. An example of Representative Edwards’ unprofessional conduct was commenting on thetwo women’s appearance in the congressional office, telling them when they looked “pretty” or “breathtaking,” and even remarking on one staffer’s weight. Representative Edwards acknowledged he made comments such as “that’s a great looking dress, I like that color, I like that texture” and that with the culture on Capitol Hill “it’s almost an insult if you don’t make some comment about [one another’s clothing].” He further testified, “I wrote sexual harassment policy [in the corporate world]. I investigated sexual harassment many, many times. I lived a very cautious life. I know that commenting on clothing without associating that with any other body part or feature is common acceptable practice inthe workplace.” Edwards also went beyond norms of professional behavior by giving both women lavish gifts. Both women received numerous gifts from Representative Edwards, including jewelry totaling over $1,000, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop and cell phone, KitchenAid mixer, robotic vacuum, vacations, tickets to performances, and one-on-one dinners.10 Several gifts were for specific occasions, such as Christmas or birthdays, but others were not; for example, Representative Edwards paid for Staffer 2 and her friend to visit New York City, including tickets to Hamilton, after she had gone through a breakup. Staffer 1 said she did not feel obligated to wear the purse or jewelry Representative Edwards gave her, but Staffer 2 felt “obligated to wear” a necklace he bought her and when she stopped wearing it, “he made a comment about . . . how disappointed he is that I’m not willing to wear what he got me.”\While Representative Edwards testified that both Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 also purchased gifts for him “all the time,” the Committee found evidence of far fewer instances, but did find that they provided him with a custom Miami Dolphins jersey for Christmas. The committee said it received evidence of 13 alleged instances of sexual harassment inappropriate or unprofessional behavior, including: Brought Staffer 1 to a holiday event at the White House, hid the details from other staffers, bought her flowers, and texted her in advance that he was “so excited about tonight” and wanted the evening to be “perfect.” Staffer 1 testified that Representative Edwards attempted to pressure her to continue the evening with him after the event and insisted on having her travel to and from the event in his car, with his driver. When asked about this, Representative Edwards said he could not recall suggesting they continue their evening, and that he accompanied her in the car out to her home in Virginia because he “felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.” Brought Staffer on political trips, including a trip to New York City, where they stayed an extra day for the Congressman’s birthday, for which he had planned a helicopter ride, dinner, and Broadway show.17 Although Representative Edwards testified that Staffer 1 asked to go on the trip, the Committee received evidence that it was his idea for her to attend the trip and that he sought to “surprise” her with the personal activities during the extra day. Left early from an event attended by congressional Members and staff and later told Staffer it was because she had brought a date. When asked about this, Representative Edwards testified to the Committee that he told Staffer 1 that he did not want to be “in the way or something to that effect.” Talked to Staffer 1 and other staffers about going to strip clubs in Washington, D.C. Invited Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 to private dinners, in at least one instance noting to Staffer 2 that she should not have the scheduler put it on his calendar. Sent Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 personal texts late in the evenings, including messages planning or following activities together and expressing personal sentiments. Went to Staffer 2’s house to perform chores like yardwork, pick her up and drop her off for events and activities with his driver, and decorate her Christmas tree together (for which he skipped votes in the House that evening). Booked and paid for massages or other spa treatments for Staffer 2. Took Staffer 2 to the casino, bought her drinks, and paid for her to gamble. Staffer 2 texted Representative Edwards after one such outing to thank him for a fun night; several months later, he printed the text message, drew a heart next to the message and hand-wrote “Perhaps my proudest personal moment!” Wrote poems for Staffer 2, including one that he read at her going away party in the congressional office accompanied by a slideshow, during which he cried. Several staffers present testified that they felt uncomfortable, and Representative Edwards acknowledged in his own testimony that he could tell the staff felt uncomfortable. Planned elaborate full-day outings with Staffer 1 and/or Staffer 2. On one occasion he suggested to Staffer 2 that they could “go to Annapolis for lunch, meditate by its water, stroll about town, find a day spa, see a movie, or wipe out the casino” and that he was “overthinking . . . but I really want you to enjoy our time together nearly as much as I know I will. The following day, he texted photographs to her with a note that he would “cherish every moment of our time these last couple of days." Arranged for a singer to go to Staffer 2’s birthday party to sing Ed Sheeran’s Hills of Aberfeldy and say that it was “from a special someone.”29 The Committee received evidence that Staffer 2 told a friend this led her to believe that the Congressman did not view her as “just a daughter figure” and that she was “scared low-key." The committee report said while Edwards voluntarily turned over some text messages between himself and the two staffers, investigators found that many they were aware of were missing or deleted. Both staffers ultimately left their jobs in Edwards's office. The committee said: Taken individually, many of Representative Edwards’ actions were at minimum inappropriate; a Member of Congress should not single out a staffer and isolate them from other staff, make frequent comments regarding that person’s appearance and weight, send messages in the middle of the night, text staff deeply personal and seemingly romantic thoughts, intrude on personal occasions without invitation, pay for personal vacations, and spend thousands of dollars on gifts for staffers. That Representative Edwards did all these things to two young staffers, repeatedly over a sustained period, was beyond inappropriate. In his interview with the Committee, the Congressman repeatedly asserted that he knows well what constitutes “sexual harassment,” and seemed to believe that by avoiding inappropriate physical touch, explicitly sexual comments, and occasionally telling the staffers that they were free to put up boundaries with him, he had immunized himself from such a charge. That is not the case. Despite the absence of an explicit proposition, a reasonable person could interpret Representative Edwards’ intimate and effusive attentions, where he prioritized the personal over the professional, as thinly veiled advances. There is also contemporaneous evidence and testimony that Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 perceived the conduct as abusive. Even under the exacting standards of federal employment law, Representative Edwards’ conduct at minimum exposed his office to the litigation risk of a viable sexual harassment lawsuit. ... Representative Edwards’ contention that he had “professional boss-subordinate relationships” and “friendships” with both women is undermined by his intentionally deleting messages to these women that were particularly inappropriate. Representative Edwards himself acknowledged that one reason he deleted messages was a concern they “might have been interpreted in a way that it wasn’t intended or that someone may be resentful of.” His decision to delete the messages identified by the Committee indicates he was aware that their content was cause for concern. Often, the text messages produced by Representative Edwards omitted messages in such a way to create the appearance that the women were initiating contact, he was not responding, or they were expressing greater interest in conversing with him than he was with them. While it is accurate that both Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 sent messages expressing gratitude and an interest in spending time with Representative Edwards outside of the office, their relationships with Representative Edwards evolved over time into something that made them uncomfortable but that they did not know how to handle. ... His conduct was also more than “overly-familiar”—it was deeply uncomfortable and led to widespread rumors he was sleeping with his staff. The Committee is concerned that the House regrettably lost two staffers because of Representative Edwards’ conduct. In this environment, where Members of Congress hold substantial influence, many individuals are reluctant to report misconduct when balancing the fear of reprisal against the potential for accountability. The Committee is committed to providing a safe and respectful place where wrongdoing can be reported and duly examined and addressed. Representative Edwards’ own account of his interactions with these women demonstrates a disregard for the higher level of decorum that should be expected in the offices of Members of the House. Nonetheless, Representative Edwards has continued to deny any wrongdoing publicly and to the Committee. He has also refused to acknowledge the reality of the power imbalance between a Member of Congress and young staffers, even as his former staffers have been put through this difficult and emotional process with serious repercussions on their personal and professional lives. This shows a lack of self-awareness and accountability. One of the staffers echoed this concern, testifying that Representative Edwards’ conduct gave the impression that “he was completely ignoring the fact that [the staffer was] a young female in politics and that [her] image is everything. And while he can navigate rumors like those that are circulating now without concern, because he is, I guess, a male in politics, he had no regard for how something like this could impact my career.” The committee recommended that Edwards be censured, by presenting "himself in the well of the House for pronouncement of the censure and ... public reading of this resolution by the Speaker." The full House will have to vote before any censure would occur. Lawmakers are back in their home districts for almost the rest of the month, so a vote on whether to censure Edwards won't occur for a few weeks at the earliest. ###

The doctor wrote down his private thoughts for years as the world faced the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/takeaways-from-faucis-diary-6068774?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=section-2 This megalomaniac will to down in history in the same category as Stalin, Hitler and the other mass murderers of their own people. He is a true pariah. One can only hope that he is held accountable - criminally and financially. Stay tuned.

We've known this for over a decade! https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/07/26/the-scale-of-ineligible-people-called-for-jury-duty-starts-to-highlight-number-of-illegal-aliens-currently-on-voter-rolls/

Click here for info. https://www.nceit.org/post/x-twitter-handles-for-2026

The NC House sold out We the People when it passed the Election Law Changes nightmare bill, H958 and sent it to the Senate Rules Committee. Senate Rules drafted the sixth version that is far worse than the other five. The bill is a nightmare for those of us who cherish voter integrity. This bill, sponsored and co-sponsored by Republicans, have consistently ‘blown smoke’ at NCEIT’s suggestions and yours to improve our election laws. (See 6/29/26 Action Alert.) It is likely that Election Law Changes, H958, will come up for a hearing in the Senate Elections Committee tomorrow, Tuesday, 7/28/26 and then go to the floor for a vote. You need to call these Senators and demand they either fix this egregious bill or kill it. Since April of 2025, NCEIT and our members have urged the House and Senate to remove or reinstate the below provisions. Email and call these Senators today. Senate Election Law Committee phone & emails Please rephrase the comments below, so they will appear unique and add your reasons why the topic is important to you. See the Rationale section for further ideas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Senator(s): H958 Election Law Changes is poised to negatively alter our NC elections unless you address these unacceptable provisions as follows: Please do not pass this bill unless you fix it. Restore confidence to our elections. 1. Foreign Money - There should be no foreign money contributions in our elections. The two exceptions to the definition of foreign nationals should be deleted from the bill. 2. Proof of Citizenship - Require proof of citizenship for new registrations and define the types of documents to be accepted. A NC Constitutional Amendment was passed for Citizen Only Voting and it is time to require that citizenship be proven for new registrants. Add this to the bill which is consistent with the President's Executive Order on this topic. 3. Proof of Identity - Documents such as a bank statement or utility bill should no longer be allowed to prove identity for voting. Identification numbers like driver's licenses and social security numbers should be used to prove identity. If identity numbers do not match the voter must be contacted to obtain additional information and be able to only vote a provisional ballot until verification is complete. Add this to the bill. 4. Social Security Numbers available to Election System - Require the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide full social security numbers for their customers to the State Board of Elections (SBE) to assist the SBE to verify the identity of new voter registrations. Add this to the bill. 5. Poll Judge Arrest Authority - Poll judges should rely on law enforcement to maintain order at polling places rather than providing them arrest authority. Delete this section to the bill. 6.Reinstate the ban on Rank Choice Voting that was in previous Editions of the bill. Why was it taken out!! This is the same style of voting in CA, NY and AK and other states who have turned bright blue. How's that working out? Instead of one person one vote, voters get multiple votes in the same race. It is unconstitutional and it is a direct attack on the electoral college. The Commies want the electoral college eliminated. This way a handful of cities across the US will decide our federal elections. These recommendations have been developed by the NC Election Integrity Team, a volunteer organization which I am a member of. Please rephrase the comments above, so they will appear unique and add your reasons why the topic is important to you. See the Rationale section for ideas. Senate Election Committee members are: Warren.Daniel@ncleg.gov, Ralph.Hise@ncleg.gov, Brad.Overcash@ncleg.gov, Carl.Ford@ncleg.gov, Amy.Galey@ncleg.gov, Brent.Jackson@ncleg.gov, Todd.Johnson@ncleg.gov, Bill.Rabon@ncleg.gov -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggestions for NC Senate Elections Committee- H958 in red. 7/25/26 1. Contributions by foreign nationals Suggestion: Remove items (e) 1 and (e) 2 from H-958 v. 6, pg. 29 which provide exceptions to the definition of foreign national. Reference: SECTION 5.3.(a) G.S. 163-278.6 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read: "(52) The term "foreign national" means any of the following: (e) Any person organized and operating in the United States that is wholly or majority owned by a foreign national or combination of foreign nationals unless both of the following apply: 1. Any contribution or expenditure the person lawfully makes derives entirely from funds generated by operations in the United States. 2. All decisions concerning the contribution or expenditure are made by individuals who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents, except for setting overall budget amounts." Rationale: - There should be no exceptions to the definition of foreign nationals. - Foreign nationals should not be allowed to contribute money to N. C. elections under any circumstances. - Other states have passed statutory guidelines that do not have exemptions for certain foreign sources of funding like those in e(1) and e(2). - The exemptions in e(1) and e(2) allow for the laundering of foreign money through payroll of U.S. citizens to influence campaigns and referendums. 2. Voting when identification Numbers Do Not Match Suggestion: Revise section (d) to remove the use of HAVA documents for identity verification. Reference: SECTION 1.2.(b) G.S. 163-166.12(d) reads as rewritten: "(d) Voting When Identification Numbers Do Not Match. – Regardless of whether an individual has registered by mail or by another method, if the individual has provided with the registration form a drivers license number or last four digits of a Social Security number but the computer validation of the number as required by G.S. 163-82.12 did not result in a match, and the number has not been otherwise validated by the county board including contacting the voter, in the first election in which the individual votes that individual shall submit with the ballot the form of identification described in subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section, depending upon whether the ballot is voted in person or absentee. below. If that the DL #, if issued, or if not the last four digits of the Social Security Number, if issued identification is provided no later than 12:00 P.M. on the third fifth business day after the election and the county board does not determine that the individual is otherwise ineligible to vote a ballot and the identification numbers match with state and federal databases, the voter is offered a regular ballot. The the failure of identification numbers to match state and federal databases shall not prevent that individual from registering to vote and having that individual's vote counted." shall require the voter to be in “Eligibility Pending” status and the voter shall be required to vote a provisional ballot until information for correction of the record is provided by the voter Rationale: - The use of HAVA documents should be limited to verifying the address for those voting for the first time consistent with HAVA 52 USC 21083 (b), not verifying identity. Identity is verified by matching identification numbers (driver’s license or social security numbers) to state and federal databases. Section (d) should be updated to clarify that mismatches need to be resolved with corrected information from the voter as required in § 163‑82.12 (9). The BOE’s should make diligent efforts to verify the identity of the voter by contacting the voter, as needed; for example, if there are errors in full legal name or birthdate. - When a match with HAVV or other federal system is not possible, the voter should remain in a “pending” status until clear identification is established. Mismatches should be addressed during the registration process to resolve any discrepancies. If mismatches persist, they should still be resolved to improve the quality of the voter rolls and avoid duplicate registrations. - HAVA requires an agreement in the state “to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration”. - Verifying identity is a requirement of HAVA and a foundation for an accurate voter registration list. HAVA documents are easily forged, making them vulnerable to voter registration fraud. - If voters lose confidence in the election system, they may be less inclined to vote, believing their vote to be nullified by ballots from ineligible voters. - Non-matches of the SSN4 were usually equal to or higher than the number of matches since 2025. 2024 had a historically high number of non-matches. In previous years non-matches were much lower than matches. The problem has become worse. 3. Require DMV to furnish full Social Security Numbers for DMV Customers to the State Board of Elections Suggestion: The requirement for the DMV to furnish the full Social Security number for DMV customers to the State Board was included in a prior version of H 958 and should be added back to the current bill. Reference: Section 2.14 prior version 2 pg. 13. Require DMV to Furnish Full Social Security Numbers for DMV Customers to the State Board of Elections Rationale: - HAVA requires an agreement in the state “to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to the extent required to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration”. - Sharing information between state agencies should be required when needed to improve quality and efficiency of operations and services. - There are a substantial number of voter registrations missing social security numbers or driver’s license numbers in official databases. Receiving full Social Security Numbers from the DMV would improve the quality and maintenance of our voter registration list. - Failure to capture full SSNs makes the process of voter list maintenance much more difficult, resulting in many more duplicate registrations on our voter list. 4. Disorderly Conduct at Voting Place (Note: This section has changed from NCEIT’s previous Suggestions.) Suggestion: Delete Section 2.3 (a) and (b) which authorizes arrest powers for election officials in H-958 v. 6, pg. 11. Reference: Section 2.3 (a) GS 14-132 reads as rewritten: "§ 14-132. Disorderly conduct in and injuries to public buildings and facilities. (b) Any person in charge of any public building or facility owned or controlled by the State, any subdivision of the State, or any other public agency shall have authority to arrest summarily and without warrant for a violation of this section. (Note: This section was changed from NCEIT’s previous Suggestions.) Rationale: - Election officials are not the same as public building administrators. They do not have the training in deescalation procedures or in conflict management as public building administrators. Election judges already have the authority to contact law enforcement to ensure peace and good order at polling sites. - The state is creating the potential for violations of First Amendment rights by empowering overzealous election officials to practice their idiosyncrasies on activities outside the voting enclosure. NC § 14-132 (b) should be deleted.- Election officials should focus their energies on behaviors and activities inside the voting enclosure, protecting voters from interference or intimidation. 5. Proof of Citizenship (Note: This section has changed from NCEIT’s previous Suggestions.) Suggestion: Revise § 163-55 to require documented proof of citizenship for new voter registrations and define acceptable citizenship documents. Reference: § 163-55. Qualifications to vote; exclusion from electoral franchise. (a) Residence Period for State and Federal Elections. - Every person U.S. citizens born in the United States, and every person who has been naturalized, and who shall have resided in the State of North Carolina and in the precinct in which the person offers to vote for 30 days next preceding an election, shall, if otherwise qualified as prescribed in this Chapter, be qualified to vote in the precinct in which the person resides. Removal from one precinct to another in this State shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to vote in the precinct from which the person has removed until 30 days after the person's removal. (b) Documented proof of citizenship required for registering to vote. The applicant is required to prove citizenship. It shall be documented on the voter registration application and UOCAVA registrations. The following documents or sources are acceptable evidence to prove U.S. citizenship: Current and valid U.S. passport; U.S. birth certificate; Consular Report of Birth Abroad provided by the U.S. State Department; Naturalization certificate issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number Verification of citizenship through authoritative state and federal databases. (b) (c) Except as provided in this Chapter, the following classes of persons shall not be allowed to vote in this State: (1) Persons under 18 years of age. (2) Any person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law. (3) Any person who is not a US citizen. Rationale: - A Citizens Only Voting Amendment to the NC constitution was passed in 2023. - The SAVE America Act now pending in the Congress requires documented proof of citizenship. - President Trump’s Executive Order 14248 of March 2025 requires documented proof of citizenship. - 12 states have laws requiring proof of citizenship for new registration which includes some who allow database verification, as an alternative to physical documents. These include Arizona, Florida (phased in starting 2027), Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Alabama and Louisiana (laws passed but not in effect). Kansas law was struck down in 2018. Guam also has a law. In addition, Texas has drafted legislation in the House and Senate and Michigan in the House. -Requiring proof of citizenship for new registrations is a commonsense requirement which would strengthen election integrity by ensuring that only US citizens can vote in US elections. This is what North Carolinians expect to protect their vote. Otherwise, our constitutional amendment has no teeth.

Stay informed! Vulnerabilities in Electronic Voting & Ballot-CountingSystems China’s Acquisition and Exploitation of American Voter Data Michigan Voter-Registration Investigation Noncitizens on State Voter Rolls https://www.whitehouse.gov/election-integrity/

Election Law H958 will send NC on the road to CA and other blue states if we don’t seriously amend it. The NC House has sold out We the People when it passed the election law nightmare bill, H958. It’s now in the hands of the NC Senate. They are supposedly going to revise the current PCS (Proposed Committee Substitute) but currently, we have no idea what the changes are. There have been 5 PCSs. One worse than the next. This bill, sponsored and co-sponsored by Republicans, have consistently ‘blown smoke’ at NCEIT’s suggestions to improve our election laws. (See 6/29/26 Action Alert.) The General Assembly is supposed to reconvene on July 27th. That means we have another chance to fix the H958. In the meantime, you can call the NC Senate Rules Committee where this monstrosity sits. You can follow up with an email. FIX H958! If you want to preserve our nation and our state, it starts in NC with our representatives representing WE THE PEOPLE. Thank you so very much for taking the time to participate. Please try to rephrase the talking points into your own words so the comments are not counted as one. Thank you. The Senate is supposed to be back in session on July 27th. Please call and email the NC Senate Rules Committee to protest your opposition to H958, Election Law Changes in its current form. Six provisions need to be either removed or re-instated. Senate Rule Committee contact page here. Dear Senator: H958 Election Law Changes is poised to negatively alter our NC elections unless you address these unacceptable provisions as follows: 1. Grants poll judges and building proprietors ARREST power! This is total overreach and abuse of power. This will directly and negatively impact electioneering workers and poll observers. Only law enforcement officers have this power. Worse, this provision is a violation of our civil rights (arrest without a warrant). Judges should call law enforcement if and when laws are broken. The reasons listed for “arrest“are too subjective for non-law enforcement to make adequate determinations. Law fare is inevitable. REMOVE THIS: DISORDERLY CONDUCT AT VOTING PLACE. SECTION 2.3.(a) "§ 14-132. (b) Any person in charge of any public building or facility owned or controlled by the State, any subdivision of the State, or any other public agency shall have authority to arrest summarily and without warrant for a violation of this section. 2. Allows foreign money to influence our elections. pg 29 lines 1-7 No foreign money Donations should be accepted in North Carolina. SECTION 5.3.(a) CONTRIBUTIONS BY FOREIGN NATIONALS needs to be deleted. The way this reads: American citizens working for foreign national organizations can contribute. Their foreign employers contribute surreptitiously. Not acceptable! Rewriting this provision in each PCS doesn’t change its negative impact on our elections. Why do you want foreigners meddling in our elections? 3. Removes the ban on Rank Choice Voting that was banned in the previous Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS). Why was it taken out!! This is the same style of voting in CA, NY and AK and other states who have turned bright blue. How's that working out? Instead of one person one vote, voters get multiple votes in the same race. It is unconstitutional and it is a direct attack on the electoral college. The Commies want the electoral college eliminated. This way a handful of cities across the US will decide our federal elections. 4. Dead voters should not be voting! The below provision was taken out and it needs to be put back in. On June 24th, there was a five-hour hearing at the BOE regarding the same issue. If you died before election day, your vote did not count. The House took it out and now the law is grey again. (A Lefty maneuver.) For any challenge sustained for death of the voter under G.S. 163-85 (c) (6) the challenged ballot shall not be counted if the voter died between the time the challenged ballot was cast and 6:30. A. M. on election day. 5. Removes prior section 2.14 in the 7/31/25 PCS which requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide social security information to the State Board of Elections. This should be put back in. We need voter verification of identity. The SS info does this. Did we not pass an Amendment for Voter ID? It's worthless unless we verify the identity of the voter. 6. Section 2.9 Removes provisions prohibiting payment for petitions. Payments for signing petitions should not be allowed!! It amounts to bribery. Why was this provision removed!! Please do a better job than the House who seems to want to turn us into a blue state. There is no reason for any of the above provisions to either be removed, reinstated or added. It is frankly incredulous that Republicans would allow these provisions to stand, be voted favorably and then moved to the floor for a vote. You work for We the People who wish to preserve our sovereignty by protecting our votes. Please do not turn us into a blue state! Sincerely, Your name Your Address Your phone

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/07/17/marco-rubio-exposes-threat-leftist-terrorism-institutions-covered-it/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=colorado-lighting-tax-dollars-on-fire-to-keep-going-after-christians-adf-lawyer-says&_bhlid=ff74896e94042e489b11bd9f0910e494b609daf5 Winston Churchill warned about the threat of Nazi Germany before Britain’s establishment was willing to listen. Ronald Reagan horrified the foreign policy establishment by plainly calling Soviet Communism evil. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio challenged a similarly entrenched dogma that leftist terrorism isn’t a serious threat. Speaking to leaders from more than 60 countries and to the American people, Rubio exposed the elites’ ideological blinders on leftist terrorism and rightly called on world leaders to combat it. America and its allies haven’t just experienced leftist terrorism, we’ve developed entire academic disciplines essentially dedicated to ignoring it or excusing it, while rightly condemning terrorism perceived as coming from the Right. The Institutional Double Standard on Political Violence Rubio argued that many academic, media, and policy institutions have treated right-wing political violence as uniquely dangerous while minimizing leftist terrorism. Rubio is spot-on. NewsNation host Batya Ungar-Sargon analyzed the data from the University of Cincinnati’s Prosecution Project—one of the legacy media’s favorite sources for claiming that most political violence comes from “the Right”—and found glaring omissions when it came to leftist political violence. The project did not mention the assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, nor the George Floyd riots of 2020. Meanwhile, it exaggerated examples of “right-wing political violence.” The Justice Department delivered an arrow to the heart of the leftist narrative earlier this year, when it indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC spent decades positioning itself as an authority on extremism while demonizing the Right. Yet according to the indictment, the SPLC was itself funding remnants of the KKK through shell companies and allegedly lying to a bank about it. The SPLC has moved to dismiss the charges and has said it was paying informants in the groups. Under the elites’ double standard, Rubio warned, “Left-wing violence was not just excused. It was treated as sacrosanct, a protected class unto itself.” The Evidence Busting the Dogma on Leftist Terrorism Unfortunately, the dogma has become so ingrained, Rubio needed to reacquaint both Americans and our allies with our own history. He highlighted many examples of political violence, from the Marxist militants of the Shining Path in Peru, who hacked “pregnant women and newborn infants to death with axes and machetes,” to the Marxist Red Brigades, who captured Italy’s prime minister and executed him in a farcical “people’s trial” in 1978. American leftist political violence also did not begin with assassination attempts against Trump. The Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Capitol. In 1977, a jury convicted Assata Shakur, a Black Panther Party revolutionary, of first-degree murder of a New Jersey state trooper. Many on the Left now hail Shakur as a hero. Her autobiography appears in almost 500 university courses. Is it any wonder, then, that even when threats of political violence from the Left have reached a fever pitch, many of America’s elite institutions are asleep at the wheel? The Heart of Leftist Terrorism Perhaps the most important part of Rubio’s speech came at the end. “Communism does not sound good in theory,” he argued. “The world it envisions for all of us is small, flat, gray, leveled of all exceptionalism, drained of all that is good and noble in the human soul.” It envisions a world without courage, creativity, heroes, and—most importantly of all—a world without God. Rubio argued that “a hatred of civilization itself” drives communism. “It is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things, and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can.” This radical-left ideology isn’t somehow excusable because America isn’t a perfect country. It isn’t idealistic. It isn’t the rational conclusion of well-educated people. Why have so many institutions minimized this threat for so long? A deep hatred of America—the false claim that “white supremacy” still defines our country—has taken root in our intellectual culture, and we must combat it. Rubio’s speech exposed the threat, and our elite institutions must take it seriously. This issue goes beyond politics. We must combat terrorism, no matter its ideological cause—and recent events underscore why we cannot ignore leftist terrorism any longer. Rubio’s speech echoed Churchill and Reagan in boldly identifying an evil many influential people would prefer to ignore. I beg my fellow Americans to listen. Tyler O’Neil | Senior Investigative Reporter Tyler O’Neil is senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal and the author of two books, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” Follow on X Tyler2ONeil

https://www.electionintegritynetwork.org/campaigns/make-elections-believable-again What President Trump Just Released The federal government reviewed more than 11 million classified pages on election security. Roughly 13,000 to 14,000 are being released publicly. Here's what they show: China stole U.S. voter data. An estimated 220 million records across all 50 states, the largestbreach in American history. Names, addresses, party affiliation, driver'slicenses, Social Security numbers. Intelligence was deliberately withheld. Career officials createdmechanisms to keep foreign election threat information from President Trump andCongress. For political reasons. Voting machine vulnerabilities were confirmed. Five separateintelligence assessments, including protocols transferable from foreign regimesthat could swap data and erase traces. Michigan registration fraud went unpunished. Workers coached toinvent names and sign for others. The FBI slow-walked it until the statute oflimitations expired. Foreign nationals are on the voter rolls. Tens of thousandsalready identified across 18 states, with projections of 1 to 2 million nationwide. Get the Full Analysis https://www.electionintegritynetwork.org/news/the-shadow-government-knew-they-lied White House Resources The Shadow Government Knew. They Lied. https://www.electionintegritynetwork.org/news/the-shadow-government-knew-they-lied DOJ Election Efforts https://civilrights.justice.gov/electionintegrity

https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-launches-election-transparency-initiative-led-ken-cuccinelli

Ammo Raffle: Win 500 Rounds of 9MM Lugers Full Metal Jacket in an ammo can! Get as many as your 'eagle wing span' will hold for $10! (My span holds 30 tickets. What does yours hold?) Tickets on-line here or at Tea Time at Bay Breeze Restaurant the third Thursday of every month or at the Land of Sky Gun and Knife Show.