Alternative reality

By John Rowerdink

President Joe Biden’s August 31 speech on the Afghanistan withdrawal was ripe with statements requiring further examination.

  1. He says it’s an amazing success but does that comport with what you’ve seen?
  2. Then, in the next breath, he says there was no way to end this in some semblance of an honorable, organized way. It can’t be both an amazing success and an unavoidable mess. Which one have you seen unfold over the last couple of weeks?  Who are you going to believe — Biden or your lying eyes?
  3. He continues to confuse the decision and support for ending the war with the disgusting way he did it. 
  4. He continues to blame President Trump for this mess. Here are two questions about that:
    • With all we know about President Trump, do you think he would let himself be viewed as weak by the rest of the world?
    • Biden reversed all kinds of other decisions Trump made but he left this one in place. So where does that buck stop?
  5. If you see the list of military equipment we left behind, it will make you sick.
  6. How could the president, our diplomats and our military brass be so wrong about the Afghan army’s ability to hold the country for a few years? Did we not work with these people for 20 years?
  7. He said we would get every single American out before we left. Did we do that? No.
  8. We said we would protect the thousands of Afghans who worked with us and get them out if they wanted. Did we do that? No.
  9. We got about 123,000 people out. 5,000 of them were Americans who wanted to leave; 6,000 of them were our troops; and by all accounts, not many of them were the 60,000 Afghans who helped us during the war (give him 12,000 of them). Who were the other 100,000 that we got out and how were they selected? How good was our rushed vetting process? Did we just take whoever the Taliban decided to allow into the airport?  What’s the chance that some of them are terrorists?
  10. We gave the Taliban a list of the Afghans who helped us during the war. What do you suppose they’ll do with that list now that we’re gone?
  11. He says we will still get these people out. Yeah, right.
  12. He talks about our support for women and girls. Go back to Afghanistan in a few months and ask women and girls how they’re doing under the Taliban.
  13. In the days ahead, watch how many of our dollars the Biden administration is going to give the Taliban. So we fight them for 20 years, we then quit and leave them billions of dollars of our military equipment while we plead for them to help us. Then after we’re gone, we send them more taxpayer dollars. How disgusting is that? Is that what he calls an amazing success?
  14. His military advisors wanted him to leave 2,500 troops there to assist the Afghan army, which they had been doing for many months with no loss of American life. The bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group in Congress recommended that we leave troops there. Military testimony to their 2020 report warned that a withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 U.S. service members from Afghanistan would result in “catastrophic consequences for the security and stability of Afghanistan, including the potential resurgence of terrorist organizations that could threaten the U.S. homeland”.
  15. Our NATO allies wanted us to stay and continue to support this NATO mission.
  16. We have 28,000 troops in South Korea more than 60 years after the Korean War, successfully keeping the peace. We have 320,000 troops in Europe more than 70 years after the end of World War II. Was it really so hard to keep 2,500 in Afghanistan? 
  17. But no, Biden wanted zero and this screwed up mess is what we ended up with. 
  18. The President of the United States is living in an alternative reality

Land grab

By Steve Woodward

(Editor’s note: The content of this post reflects the author’s informed opinion and is not necessarily endorsed by the Moore County Republican Party)

The Pilot‘s August 8 editorial presumes to instruct our county board of education on making “the right choice” with regard to the sale of land formerly occupied by Southern Pines Primary School. Allow me to interject that “the right choice” would have been to do some research on the topic.

For if one does not choose to conclude that the editorial begins with a false assertion and an erroneous claim, the only other conclusion is that the writer is lying in order to make a racially charged argument for the Land Trust’s proposed land grab.

To wit, the opening of paragraph five: “The rules are complicated, but the school board is not obligated to take the highest bid. It can accept the lesser offer if it deems it to be in the best interest of the community.”

To the contrary, the rules certainly are not complicated, while the board certainly is obligated to accept the highest bid for the 17-acre parcel. These are plainly cited by a state general statute and by the state’s constitution. In other words, law dictates what the board must do. A few examples. First, “local school boards have statutory authority … to own, purchase, and sell real property.” And, as one sales option, “bids are solicited and received at one time and opened publicly, and the highest responsive offer is conveyed to the school board.” 

But, but … what about the section allowing non-competitive sales to a non-profit or a trust seeking land owed to its “cultural, historical, natural or scenic significance”? The statute addresses this plainly. “The exception listed above is discretionary, not mandatory.” Which leads to the constitutional authority granted school boards to dismiss low bids. This is hiding in plain sight in Article 9, which holds that the constitution prohibits “school boards from donating real property or selling it for less than its fair market value” unless another school would be built on the land. 

The Land Trust’s plan for the land includes “affordable housing for minority teachers”, along with a museum, an outdoor learning lab and “entrepreneurial opportunities” (black-owned businesses, in other words). Thus, this pandering editorial begins with falsehoods and goes on to advocate for converting the land into “a mixed-use hub … focused on serving its historically black community.” 

The Pilot’s “right choice” envisions a permanently segregated Southern Pines. That’s a false choice. The board’s only choice is to comply with the law and the North Carolina Constitution, sell to the highest bidder and allocate a projected $1.5 million in proceeds across all of Moore County’s structurally deteriorating schools.   

Afraid of freedom

By Steve Woodward

The Left is mounting a new surge in the war on freedom. First, China unleashed a manageable virus that the Left declared a pandemic that would slaughter civilization. More than a year later, the Left has unleashed a “variant” of the deadly manageable virus. Their compliant foot soldiers are donning masks and trembling yet again. It’s like old times.

Once again, as Americans, as Constitutionalist Conservative Republicans, we have a choice to make. Do we comply with Lockdown 2.0? Do we torture school children with mask wearing to signal only virtue (certainly not to signal common sense or scientific guidance)? Do we surrender?

A time will come.

Or, do we anchor ourselves in God given, inalienable rights. We’ve talked about this, taken it for granted all of our lives. Do we believe it? Do we truly believe we are granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and are we willing to fight for it? Philosophically, some certainly are willing.

But that’s not going to be enough if this Leftist surge persists. We will need to have the courage to raise our voices, to hold elected “leaders” to account, to use all legal remedies at our disposal, and to remove our children from schools that see them as little more than pawns.

On Monday afternoon the Moore County Board of Education convened a regularly scheduled business meeting during which it debated on its mask policy for students and teachers when school begins. A vote was deferred to Aug. 9. The same board voted in July to reject attempts by Gov. Roy Cooper to extend mask mandates when children return to school. But that was before the almighty Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a new edict: masks for the vaccinated; masks for children; and masks for everybody else. Let the good times roll. Can we form an organization to control the most dangerous disease? The CDC.

The Moore school board’s Leftists (there are four) undoubtedly have taken a Kool-Aid bath in a taxpayer funded hot tub (pardon the imagery) and are ready to reverse course on masks. The new Pinehurst Elementary School lobby logo proclaims that it is in the “business of play”. But this school board’s leadership is in the business of playing all of us. Comments during Monday’s board meeting confirmed a bias toward masking children regardless of consequences, psychological or otherwise.

The more sinister Monday agenda item was brought to us by chair (Queen) Elizabeth Carter, and Stacey Caldwell, who is woke, shook and otherwise over the legal limit for Kool-Aid consumption. The board was expected to consider, and I quote, “limitation on length of commentaries … by individual board members (the traumatizing trio elected in November 2020),” and, “enforcement of the net 60-minute restriction on time allotted for public comment.” However, Carter permitted little discussion before proclaiming that she would enforce the 60-minute limit (because it already is on the books) beginning Aug. 9, while moving the meeting to a large auditorium at Union Pines High School. The logic is mystifying. Encourage more public attendance but cut off comments on a hard stop.

Mask the children. Mute the board members who are not welcome in the hot tub. Muzzle the public because all of the eye rolling is really bad for the optical health of the Carter Four.

Let us return to where we started. What will we do in the 61st minute?

Dangerous nationalism

By Steve Woodward


The history of disingenuous editorials published by The Pilot‘s editorial board (which can fit in a golf cart) is a long and checkered one. Note we did not elude to a SmartCar.


A recent July 24 screed dismissing the war on hijacking public education — particularly in the realm of American history — seems to have sunk the paper’s editorial standards to new depths. The intensity of wrist-ringing must have a necessitated calling on a team of physical therapists.

“If you’ve fallen behind the ‘radical leftists’ or the ‘racist right wing nuts,’ you’ve left no room for a rational and critically important discussion about race, American history and how it should be taught to our children,” scolds the author.

The editorial addresses a recent 6-1 Moore County school board vote to reject race-based curricula. The Pilot says it’s fine with this outcome because it never quite understood what all the fuss was about. You know, because … racism! It’s systemic. Who doesn’t know that?


In fact, this probably explains why the editorial crescendos with a cautionary note suggesting too much objectivity in the classroom might send this debate back to square one someday. There is, after all, “danger” if the citizenry holds (or, clings to, to quote the unifier Barack Obama) a presumption of American exceptionalism. Can’t be teaching that to kids.

If, however, the board’s policy is “used to sanitize, gag or in any other way hinder teachers from presenting a fair, honest and sober assessment of this nation’s history with race, then we will be one step closer to a dangerous nationalism (emphasis added) and an agenda that cultivates an unnatural exceptionalism (emphasis added).”

In other words, you racist right wing nuts have been given fair warning by the radical leftists, who reside down the middle in the Pilot’s newsroom.