By: Bethany Turner
of pace for our city council and
Much like the candidates
running for a seat with Wilmington’s
city council, I have a goal: I hope
to help educate our campus on the
importance of local elections. Our
beloved city is governed by a coun-
cil consisting of: a mayor, a mayor
pro tem, and five council members.
I have done a bit of research and
collected some general information
to help my fellow students gain at
least a broad knowledge of the citi-
zens running for the next two-year
term. Read the basics here and the
unedited version online.
The Incumbents: Jim Quinn, Mar-
garet Haynes, & Dr. Earl Sheridan
There are several reasons
why you should not vote for these
candidates (yes, even Dr. Sheri-
dan), but the strongest may be this:
They are all current members of the
council, yet none of them attended
the 2009 Stand Up & Vote Can-
didates Forum. Were these three
incumbents afraid to face the resi-
dents of our city?
Kevin O’Grady:
O’Grady has a very “can-
do” attitude. He holds many leader-
ship positions in city organizations.
He disagrees with a lot of the deci-
sions made by the current council,
including the ways they are han-
dling both Titan and annexation.
O’Grady would be a fresh change
would add some fun debate if elect-
ed along with our endorsed candi-
dates.
Ricky Meeks:
Meeks supports improv-
ing public transit and lowering
crime. He has run for city council
five times, New Hanover County
School Board four times, and was
even on the ballot for mayor at one
point. He has not been elected to
any of these positions.
Charlie Rivenbark:
I must give him credit
where credit is due; he was present
at the Candidates’ Forum. How-
ever, one can only extend so much.
In an interview with the candidate,
he avoided my easiest questions
(“Why are you running?”) and in-
sulted the intelligence of our resi-
dents. The best way to understand
this candidate is to check out my
Conservative Hawk blog, available
on our Webpage. You won’t be dis-
appointed.
Susan Clarke:
Clarke opposes denser
zoning development without the
foundation of sufficient infrastruc-
ture. She believes there is “out-of-
control spending” with the current
council, claiming they use invol-
untary annexation to make up for
their “shortfalls.” She ran in 2005
and 2007, but was not elected either
 There is no better way to describe these three candidates’ cam-
paign other than revolutionary. LaNasa’s best contribution is his belief
that the city needs to start thinking “out of the box” to create new ways
to generate revenue, rather than relying on annexation. McCoy feels
forced annexation in general is “tyrannical and un-American,” conclud-
ing this speech with, “If a body of government levies its taxes on a group
of citizens before they have had the opportunity to vote and elect the
people within that body of government, that is taxation without represen-
tation.” All three would like to be a voice of the People, as DeHart states,
“Too long have the voices of the average citizens been ignored.” McCoy
sums it up best when he says, “Our current leaders have no mentality
other than to keep bloating the budget year after year, to look for more
revenue through annexation and raising your taxes. We the People have
to take back our government. I do not want to be a politician - I want to
be a representative.”
By: Kevin King
Editor-In-Chief
One of the perks of running
a publication like The Conservative
Hawk is people see you as an out-
let—an outlet through which injus-
tices may be corrected and important
questions be asked. Over the past
few weeks, students, faculty, and
staff brought one particular injus-
tice to my attention: In these tough
economic times, when the budget is
frozen, certain people are allowed to
spend money that supposedly does
not exist. At UNC Wilmington, those
certain people are in the Information
Technology Systems Division, or
ITSD.
When a budget is frozen,
there is not an extra $125,000 lying
around—let alone such a large num-
ber going only to salary increases.
ITSD has not only given raises this
fiscal year, but also has a net gain in
their total salaries of $124,805. Doc-
uments from an anonymous source
show salary increases for 27 em-
ployees within the division. In a year
when the budget is said to be frozen,
these numbers are suspicious - and I
want answers.
For those not familiar with
the budget freeze, the University is
basically cash-strapped. No unnec-
essary spending is allowed. We have
all felt this in the classrooms when
our professors have told us they
were unable to print out our syllabus
or a particular quiz or test. Where is
this money then?
The UNCW Budget Office
seemed the most logical place to
start. I corresponded with Mr. Robert
“Bob” Russell, Director of Budgets,
via e-mail. After asking about gen-
eral salary increases at UNC Wilm-
ington, Mr. Russell said, “There are
no salary raises for state employees
for FY 09-10 or FY 10-11, according
to Senate Bill 202.”
North Carolina State Sen-
ate Bill 202 (SB 202) was ratified on
August 5, 2009. The bill set the ap-
propriations for the fiscal year 2009-
10 and limited budgetary items such
as raises.
If this were so, how can the
salary increases of 27 employees
within ITSD be legal? When asked
this very question, Mr. Russell re-
sponded (punctuation errors includ-
ed), “There are many ways that an
employee can get an increase in their
salary, i.e., promotion, increase in
job responsibilities, changing jobs,
etc; all of which are perfectly legal.
I believe that’s enough with your
questions.”
Enough with my ques-
tions? Is that strictly because I asked
about salary increases during a fro-
zen budget? Or is it because I am a
student asking questions above my
pay grade? Either possibility is ap-
palling. However, both possibilities
are topics of an entirely different dis-
cussion: Either no one is willing to
divulge the answers, or the answers
are kept from us intentionally.
Mr. Bob Russell does not
provide clarity or rationale about
the ITSD salary increases. It makes
sense when he states, “there are
many ways that an employee can
get an increase”—for one employee
here and there. But how does that
statement explain pay raises for 27
employees? That answer seems to
elude the Director of Budgets.
Simple answers are not easy
to find. Therefore, a formal Freedom
of Information Act request is cur-
rently on file and pending. Once the
source of these frozen funds is dis-
covered, we will provide you with an
update and explanation. Until then, I
encourage everyone to continue to
ask questions. If you don’t feel com-
fortable confronting an issue on your
own, you can contact me at editor@
theconservativehawk.com and I will
be more than glad to help in any way
possible. After all, The Conservative
Hawk is here to give a voice to those
who are silenced.
By: Vincent Conti
Years ago I argued with an el-
derly woman who was convinced that
the war in Vietnam was a meaningless
endeavor. At the time I had studied
the matter very little; but, I felt in my
gut that whenever men and women
fight for America it cannot possibly be
deemed meaningless.
Years later I was part of the
initial phase of the war in Iraq. By
2006-07, when public support for the
war was at its lowest, I heard similar
sentiments from some of my class-
mates and professors. Thankfully by
this time, I not only had some experi-
ence, but some years of study behind
me, and refuted these claims. In light
of recent events in the past election
season, I am not sure I was correct.
What exactly was the purpose
of the war in Iraq, or WWII, or even
the American Revolution for that mat-
ter? After all, no one had to take our
freedoms away; In 2009 Americans are
more than willing to vote away their
liberties to progressive politicians.
Why is it we stand up to the threats
from abroad, but actively embrace the
enemy from within? Since 1913 the
progressive movement has made ma-
jor gains, from the burdensome and
punishing income tax to activist courts
that impose their will on the people.
My criticism of the abandonment of
liberty is a bipartisan one; however,
clearly the progressive movement has
all but entirely taken over the once
honorable Democratic Party.
In January we saw the his-
toric inauguration of our nation’s first
bi-racial President - for this we should
all be proud. However, President
Obama is the most radically progres-
sive president in our nation’s history.
Progressivism is a belief in a strong
curtailment of our individual liberties
and our private property for the gen-
eral use of the collective, including
the outrageous belief that the purpose
of taxation is not to provide for the
legitimate needs of government but
social engineering, as well as buying
future votes. The recent “Economic
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009” is little more than a federal
subsidy of Democratic Party donors.
From restricting the individual right to
self-preservation, massive new taxes
(including hidden taxes as the result
of the Cap and Trade scheme), this ad-
ministration has at its core a distrust
for you and your freedom.
 A reasonable question to
pose is simply: Was the point of
fighting wars to free ourselves from
the British Crown, to avoid submis-
sion to the various despotisms of
the past century just to vote for the
imposition of totalitarianism upon
ourselves? Is it okay to be a sub-
ject of a statist power if that power
is spread between three branches of
government as opposed to a single
tyrant? Does the fact that the destruc-
tion of our liberty is being achieved
by democratic means as opposed to a
violent revolution or war make it more
palatable to my progressive friends?
I, for one, am not going to be polite
about this any longer. I am not going
to abide by the advice given to me as
a young man to not discuss politics in
public any longer. I am going to speak
truth to power from this point on and
all lovers of constitutional liberty
should join me in this quest in their
own way.
Anticipating an objection that
I am overstating the dire circumstances
we find ourselves in, I would remind
you of the liberty already lost since the
progressive era began. One quick ex-
ample is the fact that private property
rights are under assault throughout
the country through eminent domain
and the endangered species act. What
was once understood to be a primary
freedom is now subject to the whim of
government needs.
It is true the Republican Party
has not done enough to stop the pro-
gressive movement and begin to re-
peal the soft tyranny that is its goal.
For that reason, I invite all readers of
this column to re-examine their politi-
cal beliefs, seek out information about
why the Constitution was framed the
way it was, and you might better un-
derstand what the Founders were try-
ing to prevent.
Individual liberty tempered
by a good moral standard (to distin-
guish liberty from license) is the ulti-
mate goal of a civil society. Through
individualism we can all set our agen-
da, provided I don’t interfere with
your life, liberty and property. The sky
is the limit.
This is a call to action for all
of us: republicans, democrats, and in-
dependents. Let us reject anyone who
rejects our Constitution and the juris-
prudence of originalism; anyone who
plays the rich against the poor, or vice
versa. Let us all respect the property
of one another so that ours will be re-
spected in turn. Call it conservatism,
libertarianism, or simply the American
way; it is about political freedom, and
not government dependency - which to
my mind is the new slavery. If we can
reverse the trend and begin the hard
work of undoing the massive state and
restore the America that has been a
beacon to the world, the wars fought in
our history, those currently underway,
and even those yet to be fought will be
worth it. If not, I’m afraid that elderly
woman may have made a good, albeit
inadvertent, point.
21-40 of the Top Salaries of UNCW
This month we felt it important to continue to shed light on the
salaries here at UNC Wilmington. Below we have listed the next 20 sala-
ries to expand on the 20 from last issue. We will continue to do so every
issue. You can find these and more online at http://starnewsonline.com.