Saturday, September 27, 2025

THE CASH STUFF FOR OCT. 2, 2025


                                                               DALLAS WOODHOUSE

EX-NCGOP HEAD NOW

APPOINTED NC “ELECTION

INTEGRITY” OFFICIAL

By Cash Michaels

Contributing writer

The former executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, a nationally well-known right-wing partisan who used to disrespectfully call Bishop William Barber “Mr. Barber” during television appearances when he publicly opposed the minister’s Moral Monday demonstrations; railed against Sunday voting; and during the 2016 elections, sent an email to appointed Republican county election board chairmen advising them to limit early voting hours in an effort to limit Democratic voting, has now been appointed in charge of statewide “election integrity” by State Auditor Dave Boliek.  

Dallas Woodhouse, a longtime fixture in North Carolina Republican politics, will effectively be overseeing all 100 of North Carolina’s county election boards in the new role as a liaison for Auditor Boliek, who is also a Republican. “Mr. Woodhouse will serve as my eyes and ears on the ground in our elections process,” Boliek said in an email to the county chairs.

Reportedly, Woodhouse’s new responsibilities will include helping county boards develop their early voting plans, as well as shaping election policy and planning in an effort, the state auditor’s office says, to “maximize participation in elections.”

Woodhouse has been unavailable for comment since the news of his hiring broke, but when he was NCGOP executive director from 2015 to 2019, he aggressively worked against any maximizing of black early voting participation, especially the traditional Sunday “Souls to the Polls” events when area black churches would fill their church vans after services and bus their congregants to the nearest early voting precinct so that they Ould cast their ballots.

Since the majority of African-Americans, especially black women, vote Democrat, Republicans, and Republican legislative leaders have long targeted Sunday early voting for elimination, and Woodhouse helped lead the charge when he was in power.

Woodhouse also opposed same-day registration and any establishment of early voting sites on college campuses.

After the US. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February 2016 that the Republican-led NC legislature deliberately undermined the black vote “with surgical precision” and “discriminatory intent,”  Woodhouse, as NCGOP Executive Director, sent the Republican county election board chairs an email suggesting they cut early voting hours, and also, There will be those who try to further distort the process against your Republican Candidates. You should also call your republican election board members and remind them that as partisan republican appointees they have duty to consider republican points of view and that we support them as they ensure our elections are secure.”

Woodhouse continued, “We believe same day registration is ripe with voter fraud, or the opportunity to commit it.  Same Day registration is only available during early voting. We are under no obligation to offer more opportunities for voter fraud.  Same day registration does require the same type of identification required to register at other times, but no photo ID is required and no immediate proof of residency.”

The 2016 email from Woodhouse opposing early voting then targeted Sunday voting with selective language.

“Many of our folks are angry and are opposed to Sunday voting for a host of reasons including respect for voter’s religious preferences, protection of our families and allowing the fine election staff a day off, rather than forcing them to work days on end without time off. Six days of voting in one week is enough. Period.”
         “No group of people are entitled to their own early voting site, including college students, who already have more voting options than most other citizens.” 

At least one member of the Wake County Board of Elections defends Woodhouse now, saying the positions he took ten years ago against early voting should not be assigned to him now as a state official representing the Republican State Auditor’s Office.

But last year, the Republican-led NC General Assembly appointed Boliek, who won the November election over incumbent Democrat Jessica Holmes, to takeover state election administration and control from the governor.

Gov. Stein sued to stop the change. The lawsuit is ongoing, but Boliek was allowed to proceed.

Auditor Boliek then appointed two Republicans to join a third on the five-member board, and that Republican majority immediately began changing policy on May 1st.

The new Republican Election Board voted to eliminate Sunday voting in two counties, and make it optional in the other 98, after being warned not to go much further for fear of legal action.

So Woodhouse, who also used to lead a conservative group called American Majority, whose stated purpose was “to help Republicans and hurt Democrats in elections” would not be operating against his prior beliefs, which included new legislative limits on ballot access would “restore confidence” in the electoral system.

But a year ago, while lead American Majority, Woodhouse encouraged Republicans to change their earlier opposition to early voting.

“If you go out and say — ‘I vote by mail, I always vote early’ — then you can help more conservatives be comfortable with it. Remind your voters that the organized left is chasing their votes early. Big early voting helps conservatives when our candidates are starting weeks late bringing their voters to the ballot box,” Woodhouse told a gathering of conservative voters.

Figures from the 2024 North Carolina General Election show that many Republicans were listening to Woodhouse, and won several offices 2024  because they changed up, and began voting early.

-30-


Sunday, September 21, 2025

THE CASH STUFF FOR SEPT. 25, 2025


 

DURHAM POLICE CHIEF

ON THE HOT SEAT FOR

ANTI-CHARLIE KIRK POST

By Cash Michaels


The Durham City Council last week refused to punished Police Chief Patrice Andrews after calls for her removal in the wake of her now-deleted social media post criticizing slain conservative activist, podcaster and Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk for his previous negative remarks about prominent black women.

Political conservatives in the Durham community have called for Chief Andrews to be fired, saying that as a city official, she represents all of Durham’s citizenry, and should not be allowed to express "divisive" comments.

The NC Sheriff Police Alliance has also criticized Andrews.

The council, led by Mayor Leonardo Williams, expressed support for Chief Andrews, however. Mayor Williams said he personally spoke with Chief Andrews about what she wrote on Facebook.

Andrews, a Black woman, criticized Kirk, who was assassinated in Utah on Sept. 10th during an appearance at Utah Valley University there. A suspect is now in custody.

“I won't stop being outraged at the way this man is being honored by people that I thought I knew,” Andrews wrote. “This man, who disguised himself as a Christian, shamed Black women like me, believed that gun violence was necessary to preserve the 2nd amendment, and created a culture of divisiveness through hate speech."

In the past, Kirk has specifically bashed political commentator Joy Reid, former First Lady Michelle Obama, the late Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as not having “brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously,” a statement many critics deemed as racist. 

He added that those black women were “affirmative action picks” who had to “go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously.”

During a 2023 podcast, Kirk is heard to say, “If I'm dealing with somebody in customer service who's a moronic Black woman, I don't -- I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action? It almost creates thought patterns that are not necessarily wholesome. It creates resentment, doesn't it? This is not a way to design society.”

He also said that if he got on a plane, and saw that the pilot was black, that that would concern him, a not-so veiled slam at DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies. Kirk also called passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake.”

In a statement, the city of Durham noted that Chief Andrews' social media post was being reviewed, but so far, there is no indication that she broke any city employee policies.

She wrote the anti-Charlie Kirk post on her own personal Facebook page on her own personal time, which according to city policy, is allowed.

Only the Durham city manager has the power to terminate Chief Andrews, who has led the police department there since 2021, but there’s no indication of that happening.

“We cannot be selective on who gets to exercise the First Amendment,” Mayor Williams said.

“I have been in the hot seat myself several times speaking in my own capacity. I will say that we as public servants, we do have to be aware of the impact of our verbiage whether it’s in our personal capacity or not. We are human and sometimes we make that mistake.”  

“I spoke to [Andrews] personally and her intent was not to create outrage. It was her expressing her personal views within her own personal network. However, she’s the chief of police and it affects the residents of Durham if they’re interpreting it as such.”

“The First Amendment, freedom of speech, is accessible to us all, whether we like each other or not. It is for all of us, “ Mayor Williams continued. “You cannot be selectively outraged and try to determine who gets access to that or not.” 

-30-


REPUBLICANS SEEK TO

TOUGHEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

LAWS IN WAKE OF CHARLOTTE 

FATAL STABBING

By Cash Michaels

Contributing writer


Republicans are moving quickly to address issues surrounding the August 22nd Charlotte light rail slaying of a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, allegedly by a 34-year-old homeless man who has a history of mental illness, and was also released by a judge from jail for a misdemeanor offense without bond, thus allowing him allegedly to commit the crime.

The surveillance video of the murder of Iryna Zarutska shocked the nation, prompting Republican state lawmakers, and even President Donald Trump, to point fingers at Charlotte Democratic officials, as well as the judge who legally released homeless suspect DeCarlos Brown, Jr from jail.

In reaction to the case, Republican state Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby announced last week the formation of a task force to review how North Carolina’s criminal justice system currently deals with pre-trial release for criminal defendants.

“In administering justice, public safety is of the utmost concern,” Newby wrote. “When our citizens feel safe, they thrive physically, relationally, economically, and spiritually. It is my priority to ensure that we, as a judicial branch, execute our responsibilities well and strive continuously to improve our efforts to administer justice.”

Now that the NC legislature has come back from a summer break this week, Republican legislative leaders are advancing an omnibus crime bill they say will toughen North Carolina’s criminal justice system, with measures that include doing away with the cash bail system and reinstitution the death penalty.

The leaders posted the 17-page omnibus crime legislation to the NC General Assembly’s website Sunday night, proposing a host of changes to state laws already on the books. If passed, judges and magistrates would be further restricted in who is eligible for pretrial release.

Named “Iryna’s Law” in honor of the August 22nd Charlotte stabbing victim, the bill would allow people with violent felonies on their criminal records to only be released on secured bonds, which would first require a certain bail amount paid.

DeCarlos Brown Jr., the Charlotte stabbing suspect, had an armed robbery conviction on his record before being released only on a written promise last January to return to court for his misdemeanor charge.

The bill also would require judges to order mental health evaluations for people charged with violent criminal offenses and have been involuntarily committed within the past three years.

Judges would also be able to order mental health evaluations for people charged with any kind of offense if they are deemed “a danger to themselves or others.” That requirement could result in that person being involuntarily committed.

The Republican crime bill also seeks to jump-start the death penalty in North Carolina. The law is still on the books, but hasn’t been carried out since a legal moratorium imposed in 2006.

    The crime bill was passed by the NC Senate Monday night, and then sent over to the state House, which passed the measure on Tuesday. The bill is now being sent to Governor Stein for his signature.

-30-


Saturday, September 20, 2025

NEW CASH COMMENTARY FOR SEPT. 25, 2025

 

                                                                 CASH MICHAELS


                      WHAT WILL BE THE DIFFICULT WAY FORWARD?

      by Cash Michaels


I’ll never forget.

It was June 2004, and I was a guest on a local public affairs television show. The big news was that President Ronald Reagan had just died, and the nation was in mourning.

Naturally, Reagan’s passing was the lead topic on the program, so various journalists and political commentators were on the show to give their perspectives about his legacy.

Now, to be clear, at the time I was well-known to not be a fan of President Reagan nor the Republican Party, which may have been why I was invited to be on in the first place. But what folks apparently didn’t know about me then, or now, was that when someone I disagree with has died, I will respect that fact by not throwing rhetorical rocks at them in their aftermath.

Doesn’t mean I’ll ignore the truth about their time in office and what they did or didn’t do. It just means, if necessary, I’ll just state the facts about why that political figure represented things contrary to my beliefs or the beliefs of my community, and do so in a very straightforward manner without jokes or snark. I consider that fair to everybody, including myself.

If asked on that program my perspective of Pres. Ronald Reagan’s policy impact on the Black community, I was ready to express my perspective in a no-nonsense, respectful, yet even manner.

But just moments after we all sat down at the table to tape the show, a well-known North Carolina political commentator who once worked for Reagan years earlier, and was still very loyal to him, looked at me from the far end of the table, and threatened, yes, threatened me NOT to say anything negative about his deceased former boss, or else!

He just was not going to tolerate it!

Now this was over twenty years ago. I was much younger then and trying to build a journalism career, so that kind of thing bothered me. And as I recall, I did temper my remarks about Ronald Reagan on that program, out of pure caution.

But I did NOT appreciate being intimidated!

Suffice it to say, he won that one, and he and I have never spoken since!

A few years later, after a major hurricane hit North Carolina and did so much damage not only to the coast, but in the Triangle, I was working at the old NBC-17 television station (now a CBS affiliate) part-time cohosting “NBC-17 News At Issue,” which aired on Sunday mornings right before the network’s “Meet the Press.”

Normally we taped the show on Thursday evenings to air on Sunday mornings, and I can recall, after the hurricane hit, there were serious questions about what our North Carolina elected officials in Washington, DC were doing to get millions in disaster relief back to the state to help hard-hit communities here. So naturally, we invited everybody on to talk about it.

Including the biggest of them all then, controversial Republican U.S. Senator Jesse Helms.

Now obviously Sen. Helms’ views on race were well-known at the time, and naturally, he had his supporters and detractors. Make no mistake, the fact that I was the only black co-host on the program, and reported for a prominent African-American newspaper in Raleigh, The Carolinian, meant that I most likely wasn’t a Helms supporter.

` But this particular edition of “At Issue” wasn’t about politics or race. It was about what was being done to help vulnerable North Carolinians of ALL colors overcome the extraordinary damage and devastation caused by a powerful hurricane. 

So our producers called Sen. Helms’ office, eagerly inviting him to come on and share with us what he was doing in Washington to help his constituents in our viewing area. We really wanted him on to talk to our viewers and answer our questions, and would have been very grateful if he made time for us.

And do you know that the man refused to come on our show!

You know why?

Our producers said his spokesman told them because he was "afraid" I might ask him an embarrassing question on the air.

Sen. Helms (and/or his staff) made me his excuse for not showing up! 

        That had never happened before this incident, or since, and I've appeared on a lot of television talk programs with a variety of politicians and elected officials from both sides.

I couldn’t believe it at first when I heard this. Trust me, given the tremendous damage done to our viewing area by the storm, I absolutely had NO intention of straying off topic to embarrass Sen. Helms about anything. I was a young journalist at the time, and was still trying to fit in on a weekly television show I shared with two white TV newsmen.

My job was to fit in, and indeed, enhance our team's efforts, NOT use our show as a personal platform to carry out a racial justice crusade right in the middle of a statewide weather emergency. And my colleagues and our producers knew this, which is why they were shocked as well. 

In those days, I was very conscious of the fact that I represented my community and newspaper every time I showed up on TV, and the last thing I would do was embarrass anybody by embarrassing myself. So trying to show up Sen. Helms on television in the aftermath of a big weather crisis was something that NEVER crossed my mind, and was NEVER going to happen!

But the Helms episode did tell me one thing though - he and his staff definitely knew who I was at the time, and had no intention of giving me so much as a sliver of an opportunity with him in the same public space.

In one instance I was denied the opportunity to express an honest opinion because a Republican was afraid of what I might say, and warned me not to; in the other, I was denied an opportunity to do my job, again, because a Republican was afraid of what I might say or ask.

In both cases, I was unfairly and unjustly treated as if I were guilty of something, before I ever had the chance to do anything. 

And in both cases, power was wielded to deny me my First Amendment right as a journalist, simply because of who and what I was. I've never stopped resenting both incidents.

I bring those two up from my journalistic past - the details of which I absolutely stand behind today - because of what has happened in this country in the days following the horrendous murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Our nation has gone through some earthshattering political and cultural convulsions since then, signaling that more is to come.

Americans, exercising their right of free speech, for instance, have lost their jobs, and have been punished, because they dared to utter Kirk's name in a way others did not approve of, even if they were telling the documented truth.

        Former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah knows what I’m talking about. 

The self-described “last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist at The Post” was fired for a posting online about Charlie Kirk that management apparently felt crossed a line.

“As a columnist, I used my voice to defend freedom and democracy, challenge power and reflect on culture and politics with honesty and conviction,” Attiah wrote on Substack last week.

        “Now, I am the one being silenced — for doing my job.”

         Please remember the WP was ordered by its owner, Jeff Bezos, NOT to print its presidential endorsement of Vice President Kamila Harris last year, and to change its editorial policy.

         It’s also no secret that Bezos has grown closer to Donald Trump since he returned to the White House.

        Ebony McMorris also knows what I'm talking about. The veteran reporter for American Urban Radio Networks, during a press conference in the Oval Office just last Friday, was one of many in the White House Press Corps screaming for the president to answer their questions. Normally, you get your question answered by being the loudest, catching his attention.

McMorris wanted Trump to talk about his plans to deploy National Guard troops to Memphis, as he has threatened.

Apparently irritated by her persistence, Trump shut her down with “Quiet! You’re really obnoxious.”

“I’m not obnoxious, but I’m trying to ask you, what about your plans for Memphis?” McMorris defiantly replied.

“You are really obnoxious,” Trump responded in a threatening tone. “I’m not going to talk to you until I call on you!”

Trump ignored McMorris for the rest of the Oval presser. He never treated any other yelling or screaming member of the WH press corp that way.

Like I said, Ebony McMorris is a veteran White House reporter, and she knows how to conduct herself in these very competitive situations. These days, she’s competing not only with the major news networks in the Oval, but lots of new conservative media, so sitting on her hands when she has a pertinent question to ask the president of the United States just doesn’t cut it.

McMorris is also a member of the Washington Association of Black Journalists, which issued a statement afterwards:

“Asking difficult questions you don’t want to hear does not make her ‘obnoxious,’” the WABJ wrote. “Ebony is just doing her job, like everyone else in the room.”

I’m not citing race in this instance. Days earlier, Trump openly threatened Jonathan Karl of ABC News for asking a touchy, but legitimate question, and a white Australian reporter, for doing the same thing by asking about how the Trump family is currently making their money. Trump threatened the guy, and promised to complain to his country’s soon-to-be-visiting prime minister about the reporter.

        Talk about a chilling affect.

But the fact remains, threatening or intimidating reporters you don’t like because they’re doing a job you don’t approve of, is wrong. There are other, more civil ways of engaging with what you think may be a hostile press. Other presidents have successfully done so.

         One thing that is crystal clear to me from past personal and professional experiences, as evidenced by my two stories from years ago, is that the right-wing in this country has always been super-sensitive towards folks they oppose exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights, and has historically used intimidation and wielded power to checkmate the First Amendment rights of those people when they could.

        Case in point:

From 1947 to 1954, Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin publicly, and falsely in many cases, charged the Hollywood film industry with being infested with communists - the so-called “Blacklist,” costing many innocent Americans their careers, and frightening the entire country with the “Red Scare.” Sen. McCarthy was eventually brought down by legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, who had the guts to confront him.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon went to war with The Washington Post and CBS anchorman Dan Rather over their Watergate investigations and coverage of his corrupt administration. 

        Nixon lost that war, and was ultimately forced to resign his office in disgrace.

In 1985, Sen. Helms actually led a movement encouraging conservatives to buy up CBS stock in order to take control of the network, and stop newsman Dan Rather. The effort failed, but is remembered in history for its audacity.

But now, multiply all of that by ten, especially since Republicans have plenty of presidential power to do something about their super-sensitivity and quelling of free speech rights.

I must tell you that in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, I have truly feared for this country and its future, especially given the leadership that we now have in place. We are seeing unbridled power being wielded in a manner rarely witnessed before, and to say it smacks of fascism and authoritarianism is indeed an understatement.

        In just the last two weeks:

The attorney general of the United States, with the president’s blessing, threatened citizens and companies who exercised their free speech rights about the Charlie Kirk assassination. In a truly incredible stance, she “threatened to prosecute” Office Depot, the company, because an employee there reportedly refused to print Charlie Kirk vigil posters.

The vice president of the United States angrily urged citizens to “drop a dime” and rat out their fellow American citizens who exercised their free speech rights to express their negative opinions about Kirk, with the intent of having them lose their jobs as a result.

        The Defense Secretary of the newly minted “Dept. of War” mandated that reporters must clear their stories with his agency before publication, even if the information is not classified.

The wretched presidential advisor Stephen Miller, swore "before God” to wage war against “leftists,” erroneously holding “them,” not the one troubled young suspect in custody, but “them,” responsible for Kirk’s death.  

        And amid all of the many touching words of tribute about love for Christ, love of family and forgiving your enemies at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Service just last weekend, many Americans are still stunned by Pres. Trump’s brazen, disrespectful diatribe there when he disdainfully spewed, “I hate my opponents!”

How’s that for a comforting attitude from our commander-in-chief?

These folks want to seriously, and inexplicably, hurt somebody, and they have the power to do it! Even two conservatives I disagree with vehemently - Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz, have called what's going on "dangerous," with Cruz likening it to "...something right out of the mafioso."

        And before all of that happened:

        The president of the United States forced the Republican-led Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio - two nonprofit organizations depended on by millions of Americans for news, information and culture -saying, "Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or endorsement." The president accused CPB, which is now closing after 60 years, and NPR, of being “radical leftists.”

The question is, can America survive all of this stuff?

I don’t know. All I do know is that the national deck is literally being stacked, and pretty soon, the U.S. Constitution will no longer matter, let alone exist.

We need a free and open press now more than ever, but bold challenges to that very idea are afoot, like Trump suing the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times (at press time, a federal judge had dismissed the NYT lawsuit, saying that it is not supposed to be a public forum for "vituperation and invective”). 

Or forcing Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel off the air because, as political satirists, they were doing their constitutionally protected jobs (I know Kimmel is back on, but let's face it, he's now a marked man. I do salute him, though, for leading the charge in standing up for Freedom of Speech).

Or threatening the FCC licenses of broadcasters if they don’t police their opinion programming, like ABC-TV’s “The View,” to conform to government demands.

Who or what is next? The answer to that question determines who this country really belongs to.

We’ve seen what has happened to universities, law firms and cities that have been made prime examples of unyielding power by this administration. I honestly don’t think anyone has to convince me any further that this country is no longer the “land of the free.”

The only question now is, is this still the “home of the brave,” and if it is, who will come to the door of that "home" when the rest of us knock, seeking leadership?

Well, here’s one voice I trust who has the requisite experience, knowledge and courage to answer the door  - former President Barack Obama, appearing before the Jefferson Educational Society in Erie, Pa. Tuesday, Sept. 16th, six days after Charlie Kirk’s assassination:

“…[T]here are no ifs, ands or buts about it, the central premise of our democratic system is that we have to be able to disagree and have sometimes really contentious debates without resort[ing] to violence. And when it happens to some but even if you think they’re, quote, unquote, on the other side of the argument, that’s a threat to all of us. And we have to be clear and forthright in condemning them.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a debate about the ideas that people who were victims of political violence were promoting. And so, I’ve noticed that there’s been some confusion, I think, around this lately, and frankly, coming from the White House and some of the other positions of authority that suggest, even before we had determined who the perpetrator of this evil act was, that somehow we’re going to identify an enemy. We’re going to suggest that somehow that enemy was at fault, and we are then going to use that as a rationale for trying to silence discussion around who we are as a country and what direction we should go. And that’s a mistake as well.

[There are] topics that we have to be able to discuss honestly and forthrightly, while we still insist that in that process of debate, we respect other people’s right to say things that we profoundly disagree with. That’s how we should approach this.

Amen, Mr. President, amen. And thanks for answering the door with wisdom, integrity and truth!

Scott Pelley of CBS’ “60 Minutes” has said the murders of Charlie Kirk, and before him, Democratic Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman - who was helplessly gunned down in her home last June - have put “blood on the First Amendment.”

Our government is wrong, very wrong, for what it is doing to our nation right now.

I pray that the First Amendment - our right to free speech and freedom of the press - bleeds no further, as America tries to determine, what will be the difficult way forward.

      -30-