Let me first preface my comments by saying, I don't always agree with Dr. Mumpower ... in fact, sometimes he makes me very unhappy by his position on some issues. Nor do I always agree with Chad. But I will defend him and Chad on this one.

I don't remember when Matt Mittan has ever agreed with Dr Mumpower. And if he did it was tepid at best.

I first noticed the tone towards Dr. Mumpower when Carl stated reporting, and investigating on the drug scene in Asheville ... Matt supports legalizing drugs, and is staunchly against enforcing the drug laws. So in my opinion he has little regard for people or politicians who believe drugs are a bad scene, and want law enforcement to become more involved. Carl was involved with the police in surveillance of drug deals, and reported on what he was seeing, and encouraged the authorities to crack down in these drugged out neighborhoods. No doubt that didn't go over well with the libertarian radio host.

Then we come to Chad ... Chad was going into neighborhoods for a time talking to residents about drugs in the area. And was on TV and posting on youtube about how the authorities needed to get involved in stamping out drugs in these neighborhood.

I always wondered why there seemed to be a negative tone when he spoke about Mumpower, or Chad ... or talked about their activities.

Matt did nothing but deride Dr Mumpower for his audacity in contacting ICE about these poor manufacturing plants that were hiring illegals ... Dr Mumpower was trying to make the bosses and mangers accountable for their hiring practices. Matt just kept on deriding Dr Mumpower in his monologues about the issue. Mr. Mittan was defending the plant bosses and owners, as victims being put upon, and ruining their business by big bad Carl Mumpower. I thought at the time ... Why the negative tone towards Dr Mumpower, and what he had done illuminating the hiring of illegals ... and especially a short time later, upon hearing a caller to the show on the topic of illegal immigration ... the caller commented on plant owners and bosses that are not held accountable for hiring illegals. And that the owners and bosses should be the one on a perp walk, not just the illegals. Matt then agreed with the caller and commented on the unaccountability of these business owners, hiring illegals without consequences ... that they to should be held accountable. It was such an inconstant response after his deriding of Dr Mumpower for doing just that. Making the owners and bosses accountable for hiring illegals.

Just my opinion, but this negativity towards Dr. Mumpower and Chad Nesbitt all boils down to the drug issue as explained above.

You, the reader and listener can decide what his motives are for the inconsistencies ... and his negative, and deriding tone when speaking about Dr. Mumpower and Chad Nesbitt. I've stated my opinion.

Wow! Why the hostility? If I knew exactly what you were talking about, I might be able to respond better. But with no specifics, and all the generalities, it makes it impossible to really know how to respond. My comments weren't accusatory, nor personal. Just making general observations about how PC we have all become, and society in general. I've read and usually enjoyed your commentaries, and we've met on a couple of occasions. That's why I don't understand the hostility. There was nothing in my email warranting such a response. But evidently just making an observation is offensive. ... Who knew! Especially when there was no intent on my part to insult, or reproach. But however you perceived my email ... I'm not your enemy.


Please forward this in its entirety to "****", with my full name attached. She can then “out” me if she so chooses.


Why would I want to 'out' anyone? Is that anyone's business? I really don't know why you'd be PO'ed, as it was never meant as a personal accusation. I would apologize, but there was nothing in my email that was intended as a rebuke, or implying some sly reproach. And really, I'm sort of at a loss trying to understand the anger in your email ... or what the purpose is, one way or other. As I'm NOT the Republican Party, of who your rant mostly concerns. Being a 'republican' means nothing to me. I use it as a platform from which to further my own agenda of a Constitutional, historically traditional Conservatism, and to meet folks of like mind. I will coalesce with anyone that can further that goal, even democrats. ... as my research, and my love of history has shown me, enacting and following said Conservative philosophy is what has made us a great and prosperous nation.


Out or in! ... That's personal business until it starts effecting my family, and the moral compass folks wish to instill in their children. I REALLY don't care what folks do in the privacy of their bedroom, (within the confines of law)... That's why they call it "private life." If they would just keep it in their bedroom it would be great. Whether heterosexual or homosexual. Keep their sex lives where it belongs... in the privacy of their bedroom ... I wouldn't have a problem. It's when they bring it to the PUBLIC streets, PUBLIC institutions and to the PUBLIC schools that I have a problem. And when, through force of government they expect me and my family to validate, sanction and embrace a sexual proclivity that infringes on my conscience.


I chose (incorrectly) not to put a signature to my previous ramblings precisely because I no longer view things in terms of ""right" and "left" but rather in terms of "right" and "wrong" -- with perhaps a smattering of gray area in the mix. "The left" no longer has the market cornered on "wrong" (if indeed it ever did) -- and so it is with the so-called "right" and its proclaimed quality of "right" as well.


I would have responded the same way, whether you signed you name or not. And this is my rambling thoughts in an attempt to answer your email.


I'm gratified that you've seen the light and have found your political nirvana .. and now feel free of any inhibition to make pronouncements against 'right' or 'left'. I on the other hand, I have never felt that inhibition, whether in a Party or out of one. As I've done both. Unless something drastic happens to change political dynamics .... at the end of the day, the main political candidates will be democrat or republican. And so, until that changes, I will be exerting my influence on the republican party with my votes, along with persuasion of my fellow conservatives, in order to guide the party onto the correct conservative path. I can't do that being unaffiliated. And make no mistake, there is a difference between 'Conservative' and 'Republican.'


I call'em the way I see'em regardless of who, or what party is doing the deed. It has ALWAYS been right or wrong for me. I don't, and never have trusted ether party.


"The left" no longer has the market cornered on "wrong" (if indeed it ever did) -- and so it is with the so-called "right" and its proclaimed quality of "right" as well.


"The left" no longer has the market cornered on "wrong" "If indeed they ever did!" ....Your kidding, right? The Left, in their (so called) 'good intentions' of promising everything to everyone in order to buy votes ... for the soul purpose of power, have brought this nation to the edge of financial ruin.


In other words, people who choose to do their own thinking (rather than allow "the right" to handle that chore for them) have become a bit weary (and wary) of the inflexible "rules of position" by which we are expected to abide -- and yes, I am all too aware that the same dynamic exists on "the left". I think so -- and the gays etc. are right in their crosshairs.


I do my own thinking, and research, that's how I found the commentary in my email. I thought it was very insightful, and right on the money. When I mentioned in my emails about timid and trepidacious judgments being made, I was also speaking of the right as well ... but for the most part, the Left, along with actors on the Right have brought this country to financial ruin ... and one of the reason for that decline is because of their PC trepidation of not making judgments about anything.


If "the right" can justify its abuse/neglect of the middle/working/self-employed classes which has been perpetrated for decades, is it just possible that they then employ "scapegoat social politics" to divert attention from their own misdeeds?

I think so -- and the gays etc. are right in their crosshairs. Wow, I just passed judgment on a group and signed my name to it -- it feels great! But I digress.


Both parties have many misdeeds ... there will never be a perfect party or system. No matter how many unaffiliated there are. But the promising of 'free' stuff (and we all know, nothing is free) for votes, as the democrat party has done (and some republicans) for decades has brought us to the brink of financial collapse. And has indebted future generations to a lower standard of living, because of our own greed. We have all fed at the public trough believing we could get something for nothing. And now the financial chickens are coming home to roost.


Class warfare does nothing but insight division. Free Market solutions and entrepreneurship raises all boats. It makes jobs, for the average man on the street. The Bolsheviks used the socioeconomic conflict very well in order to gain power. Not that severe problems didn't exist. But as Abraham Lincoln said .... "You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich." Today's Democratic party uses class warfare just as liberally as Marx ever did. And in the end, we see the genocide it brought to Russia.


I have nothing but contempt for the 'actions' of the Democrat Party, as it is infested with Marxists and Communists, and has been so for a very long time. The platform and structure of the Democrat Party gave those of the radical Left (Communists and Marxists) a favorable home, and insured a welcoming climate where by they're philosophy could become mainstream, promising socialistic redistribution of wealth in order to gain power to further a Marxist agenda. And taking the country ever closer to a totally socialist system of government.


"Scapegoat social politics?"


You do know the city of Asheville is imposing, what I see as their idea of morality though force of government on everyone in the city ... and their next target is the county? Besides, I know several in the Republican Party who support same-sex marriage. CPAC is now endorsing homosexual behavior for the sake of a bigger tent, ignoring the harm that brings to society .... I'm standing for what I believe in, which is the fundamental right of freedom of conscience, not to be coerce by government to support acts that infringe on that freedom. So I'm fighting both parties, one, more than the other ... as of right now. Comparing homosexual rights to the Civil Rights struggle, as supporters are doing is totally fallacious. And I feel an insult to people of color, by comparing a sexual, and in many cases, transitory proclivity with an immutable characteristic like race.


I refuse to bully those adults who are legitimately confused regarding their own sexuality because it serves no purpose beyond inflaming the extremists among them -- who then play that sentiment to the militant gay movement’s advantage.


Totally Agree ... I to refuse to bully anyone, nor would I support bullying of any kind. God's love goes out to us all. And we're all made in his image ... we should never treat anyone with disrespect. What about my email said otherwise? But combating a public policy that infringes on others 'fundamental' right of conscience is another matter.


Besides, we have all encountered those adults who are unfortunate products of genetic inconsistencies and childhood abuse -- why hate them for something which was in no way their doing? Leave them alone. So long as they do not put their sex life on display any more than do the rest of us, nothing is accomplished by their persecution.


Who said I hate them? I can respect the humanity of a person without being forced to validate, sanction and endorse their sexual predilections, and behaviors. While I feel compassion for people caught up in this compulsion, and understand their desire for societal acceptance, and stamp of approval. Some compulsive behaviors are unhealthy, and lead to a shortened life span and should not be encouraged. Live and let live ... absolutely! But that's not what's happening.


Homosexuality is no different than say... gluttony. But I don't think we should encourage gluttony in our schools. Their both different types of appetites, and many are predisposed to that behavior. Want to engage in the behavior, have at it! That IS none of my business... UNTIL it starts impacting PUBLIC POLICY and my FAMILY. Especially in the public schools. Then it does become my business. My concerns are about public policy, what is taught in the public schools, and community standards. How a person lives their PRIVATE life is their business. What is taught, and impacts my family, is most certainly my business.


But I draw the line at the point wherein innocent children are indoctrinated and intellectually seduced for purposes of perpetuating a culture which is non-self-propagating. I genuinely believe that it is a sin to do so before adulthood provides an individual with the perspective to make a rational understanding of his sexual orientation -- and all that the choice to adopt the gay lifestyle implies. Indeed, to elevate physical, hormonal, chromosomal and chemical inconsistencies to the "cultural" level would seem (to me) to be quite close to the very definition of "dysfunction".


Totally agree!


Yes, the homosexual culture is tragically dysfunctional by nature -- but so is the compassionless "open up the free trade shark tank / every man for himself / to hell with everybody who doesn't believe exactly as we do" culture within which "the right" dwells.


Again, you rail against the Republicans ... Myself, I'm certainly not against a safety net for those unable to help or support themselves. I don't know anyone that is against a helping those that can't help themselves. But this ponzi scheme known as SS is not sustainable. Nor any entitlement that is abused though fraud, and vote buying. You know what Benjamin Franklin said .... "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." And that's just what the unions, and democrats have found out. I'm sure you'd agree that any safety net should be as close to the community as possible. The more oversight, the less abuse and corruption. And the system would be better able to help those in true need.


So: what does the right teach its children? Do they teach them to have compassion for the mentally and physically disabled, the economically disadvantaged (thank you, Free Traders etc!) and others who experience legitimate difficulty "fitting in"? In other words, does it teach that whatever they do to the least of those, they do to the Lord? Or does it teach something else altogether?


So what do you think the 'right' teaches it's children? ... I mean really!! And who is the 'the right?'


Compassion is wonderful ... unless socialistic, misguided compassion drives the whole system over a cliff. What good is this over zealous, compassion when it destroys the goose that laid the golden egg? Taking EVERYONE down to the desperation of want and need. Lifting all boats through free market solutions means more businesses and people being able to give liberally to charities, to their churches and to their community. That's the way to have long term, sustainable care system. It's also the way the Founders set up and envisioned the system to run. Socialism is unsustainable. And that's my position, and I'm stickin' to it



We must protect the children from those who would harden their innocent hearts as surely as we must protect them from those who would corrupt their unformed and impressionable minds. In either case, it perpetuates the dysfunction which pervades our modern American society. That's my position, and I'm stickin' to it.


Who is hardening their hearts? Again, no specifics. I don't know of anyone that doesn't have compassion for folks, and their struggles. I know what doing without is about. My family didn't have an inside bathroom till I was in my twenties. So I can empathize when talking about being poor. But that's doesn't mean being poor gives anyone the right to take from their neighbor, at the point of a government gun.


We will ALWAYS have dysfunction ... we live in a fallen imperfect world, inhabited by fallen imperfect people like myself. Not having some sort of dysfunction somewhere would be strange.


As I said, I'm not your enemy. I'm just trying to respond to your email. It is not meant to be a hostile response towards you.


Having been in some of the same events and meetings with you, I would say we agree more than we disagree. ... I don't know your circumstances, but I do hope the best for you and yours, and wish you well in all your endeavors.