In his Sunday comic, no less, Garry Trudeau invites you to experience "The power of no" in North Carolina.

Sums up the situation nicely, doesn't it?

I'm just getting back from one of the many rallies and events around North Carolina and around country today to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. One of the lead groups behind it is the National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities along with more local and statewide partners like Asociación de Mexicanos en Carolina del Norte. At the event I attend I heard voices ranging from passionate arguments for equality to a heartbreaking tale of how a broken immigration system has devastated lives.

Soon be included in the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual:

For all that, this is a deeply divided base. Moderates are a quarter of those who identify Republican, and they are very conscious of their discomfort with other parts of the party base.

Their distance begins with social issues, like gay marriage and homosexuality, but it is also evident on immigration and climate change. Fiscal conservatives feel isolated in the party. Evangelicals who feel most threatened by trends embrace the Tea Party because they are the ones who are fighting back. They are very in tune politically, but the Tea Party base is very libertarian and not very interested in fighting gay marriage.

This is a fairly extensive report, and well worth the read if you can stomach it. But the authors appear to be exploring differences in the ideological makeup of the three groups with an eye towards potential future problems of solidarity, and I'm not so sure they are as different as they'd like to believe. Take, for instance, their supposed positions on gay marriage and abortion:

If a man won't stand by his words, such words have no value:

Kim Genardo, McCrory’s communications director, said information from the session could be reported but could not be attributed to the governor, a Cabinet secretary or an executive team leader.

I declined the invitation. I’m sure Gov. McCrory’s intentions were good, but these types of background sessions are an insidious practice. They allow public officials to promote their interests and criticize others without having to take responsibility for their comments.

This may seem like a "personal preference" thing or maybe even posturing on John Drescher's part, but in reality it's an extremely important action. When you have an ethically-challenged politician like McCrory, who doesn't even possess a moral compass, much less one that's calibrated properly, you have to draw lines. Like a toddler, he'll explore any area within his reach, unaware that some areas are simply off limits until he hears the word, "No!" It doesn't always stop them, but part of growing up is choosing right or wrong, once you've learned to tell the difference.