Column for July 5, 2012

This week we celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  I am going to quote what I wrote as an introduction to the Town of Selma’s ceremonial reading of the Declaration.  Hopefully, some of you got to hear it and the Declaration read Wednesday night.

“The American Revolution against Great Britain began in 1775.  On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution to declare colonial independence in the Second Continental Congress.  The vote on that resolution was delayed for several weeks.  On June 11, 1776, the congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence from Great Britain.  One June 28th, a draft of that declaration was presented to Congress.  On July 2nd, Lee’s Resolution was partially passed by Congress,  declaring,  “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”   The declaration document was debated and revised, and on July 4th, the Second Continental Congress approved the final draft of the American Declaration of Independence”.

I consider July 2nd to be our actual Independence Day, not July 4th.  This is not just because July 2nd is my birthday, but because the actual vote for American independence came on that day.  John Adams thought much the same way.  He wrote to his wife on July 3rd, 1776, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America.  I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.  It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.  It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more”.

The Second Continental Congress voted for independence to escape the tyranny they had been experiencing, which was enumerated in the Declaration, point by point.  Tyranny can come in various forms.  The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this.  Samuel Adams, cousin to John Adams (and not just one of my favorite beers), said “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.”  Never has this quote been as poignant as it is today.

North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue has vetoed the state budget so that she can look magnanimous in her stance for increased funding for public schools.  This is nothing more than a ploy to build her legacy as someone who allegedly cares about children and education.  However, discerning people realize that it’s nothing more than political showboating.  The plain meaning of adequate funding is being perverted.

The recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on both the State of Arizona’s immigration law (SB1070) and on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) show that the quote by Samuel Adams to be glaring accurate.  To declare that states no longer have the ability to control immigration to their respective sovereign jurisdictions (as originally intended) is federal tyranny over states.  The Arizona decision along with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws cause states to shoulder the burden of educating illegal immigrant children, requiring large state education budgets.  The fact that Obamacare was ruled as constitutional as a form of taxation has forced the single largest tax increase in American history.  It takes away your freedom of choice over whether or not to carry health care coverage, and requires you to participate in commerce, whether you choose to do so or not.  That, my friends, is a form or tyranny.

The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare was a surprise to me, since I figured that even a high school civics student could have figured out that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was highly unconstitutional.  Sure, there were some provisions I liked in the bill, but they were small ones.  Sure, the health care laws could use revision, but this gigantic bureaucracy was not the way to go, nor is it the American way of doing things.  If the law is an exercise in tyranny, limits freedom, and is a major financial burden, then the parts I like are irrelevant and not worth the government’s interference and tyrannical power.

In the first paragraph, I quoted the brief narrative on the Declaration of Independence for a reason.  Folks, we started a revolution for far less than we are putting up with now.  When will we have had enough?

Column for June 28, 2012

Even if we have a flawed system of government, it’s possibly still the best one in practice.  That is, of course, only if moral men and women are in charge of the government.  In 1776, John Adams, our second President of the United States and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was quoted as saying, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."  Within the last two weeks, we have seen great lapses in morality in our governments at different levels, but it is all linked together in purpose and in poor judgment.

Locally, the Wake County School Board voted to return to a “diversity based” student assignment plan beginning in 2013.  After so much controversy about going to a “neighborhood schools” based assignment plan that is only one year into that plan, the school board is reversing its previous stance on the issue.  In a retreat from morality and common sense, students will be shuffled around yet again rather than being allowed to stay in a school closest to their homes.

The immorality that comes with this decision is astounding to me.  So-called “reverends” (ordained clergy) spouted specious claims of racism and segregation in the courageous decision to return to a neighborhood school policy.  The idea of being able to send your child to the school that is nearest to their home was a moral one, being responsible to the taxpayers who are paying the bills for public education, to the students who will spend less time being shuttled around the county, and to families that will have more time together.  All of those ideas are being tossed out the window in the name of diversity.

Diversity is nothing more than a liberal utopian concept meant to falsely display concern for others whom you secretly disdain and treat with condescension.  The idea that poor or minority children cannot perform well in public schools unless they are seated next to allegedly richer Caucasian children is nothing short of sheer racism and sells minorities short of their potential.  It is a modern form of enslavement of the mind and body.

Linked to this concept is the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down three provisions of Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-illegal immigration law.  SB1070 was a state law that mirrored the federal statutes on illegal immigration.  Arizona acted because the federal government would not enforce its own immigration laws and, being a border state, Arizona was paying a heavy price because of it.

Just within the past two weeks and prior to the SCOTUS decision, President Obama unilaterally decreed that the federal government would not enforce some provisions of federal immigration law, bypassing Congress and the legislative process.  This is nothing new to either Obama or even Presidents.  We are a nation of laws, and yet potentates decide by fiat that some laws are not to be enforced display yet another abrogation of moral obligation.  Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”  If indeed the Arizona law or even national immigration laws are bad laws, then the best way to get rid of them is to enforce them, not ignore them.

So, what does the Supreme Court’s aberration of a decision on Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama’s decision to refuse to enforce federal law, and the Wake County School Board’s utopian stupidity have in common?  First, they all demonstrate that elections have consequences.  Second, if states cannot protect themselves and their sovereignty against illegal immigration or any other threat because of allegedly contradicting federal law (even if none are technically being contradicted, as was the case in Arizona), then states must sit back and take whatever garbage is handed them by the federal government’s actions or inaction, as the case may be.   Because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws (in self-contradiction), then the states are helpless to fend off any problems caused by illegal immigration.  States are the ones paying the bills for the costs of illegal immigration, including for education of illegal immigrant children. 

Wake County would not have to be so worried about achieving diversity, about budget constraints, or about political correctness regarding race issues if illegal immigration could be seriously curbed by enforcement of current federal law and enactment of appropriate state laws.  The moral failure of refusing to follow the law, refusing to allow states the right of self-determination, and of failing the students of local public schools is but a sign of the times in which we live.

Column for April 19, 2012

Recently, I got some feedback from a friend of mine on an old column that I wrote a few years ago and that I used as fodder last month for a television commentary.  I discussed the idea that the founding fathers of this nation debated and considered requiring property ownership as a pre-requisite to voting rights.  The idea was that since at the time, the primary taxation method was that on property, only those who actually own property are the ones who should be able to vote for those who would set taxes upon it.  That is a concept that I truly like for municipal and county voting, since that is the primary method of taxation at those levels of government.  Furthermore, I believe that those who receive a government check for their subsistence other than via employment should not be able to vote for those who set our national taxation rates.

I made the comment, “I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town.  I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies.”  For that, my friend chastised me saying, “Vote with the good of the whole in mind?  Think of the collective? This is what the left wants, collective thought.  I know it was a slip, but BAD TROY!  Self-interest is good, big government is bad that leads to those voting for more government and stuff.”  I knew what he meant, and he knew what I meant.  I agree that self-interest is what drives capitalism and for men to advance themselves, their communities, and their families.  This led to an interesting conversation.

I said to my good buddy, “Yes, the good of the whole.  When one votes with only the paradigm that “I want what I can get from the public treasury”, it is what the big government progressives want.  When it is the concept that even if I don't benefit the greatest from the public largesse but can take responsibility for my own actions and if everyone else does the same, that is the public good.  When taxes are lower for all, that is the public good.  When politicians don't rob responsible citizens and give it to those who won't work, that is the public good.  When the opportunity of all to succeed through the capitalist system is the goal of government rather than equality of outcome, that is the public good.”

We had a brief back and forth from there, with him saying “I know what you meant however it could be inferred as the collective good i.e. the state over the individual.”  I wrapped up my end of the friendly debate by saying, “When I wrote it (some time ago, actually.  It was an old column from a few years ago), I figured that the context of the statement was pretty much, "Stop trying to mooch off us taxpayers by voting for welfare supporting filii illegitimi!"”  The Latin expression was substituted as a euphemism for the vernacular term I actually used.

When I speak of the collective good, I am not using an “it takes a village” communistic mentality.  Even though not everything government does may be in my personal best interest, it can be for the best of all citizens.  Second President John Adams wrote in a letter to Mercy Warren exactly 236 days ago to the day of my writing this column (April 16, 1776), “Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.”

In theory, government is supposed to operate toward certain ends.  In the Bible, the Apostle Peter wrote, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1Peter 2:13-14, ESV)  Paul affirms this concept in Romans 13:1-4, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.  Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?  Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. “  

I have to admit, though, that with a government that does not properly praise those who do good but rather creates and environment whereby many sponge off those who actually do good, this is a difficult thing for us that are being crushed by taxes and bad government.

Column for April 7, 2011

I have been thinking about something that (eventually) President John Adams wrote to his son, the future President John Quincy Adams. He wrote, "...remember that all the end of study is to make you a good man and a useful citizen." My twisted mind works like this. When I hear “to make you a good man”, I think of two things. First is the Biblical concept written twice in the Psalms and once in Romans, “...there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” That is not to say that one can not work to be transformed into a better, more useful man and citizen. It is dealing with the state of sinful mankind and the nature of man under sin. Thankfully, I have Christ and my righteousness is in Him instead of my own self.

My second thought goes to something the character Melvin Udall said, as played by Jack Nicholson in the wonderful 1997 movie, “As Good As It Gets”. When attempting to give a compliment to Carol the Waitress (as referred to by Udall and played by Helen Hunt), he explains that he started taking pills to help him with his personality disorder because, “You make me want to be a better man.”

Though I sometimes feel more like Melvin “good times, noodle salad” Udall, I also wish to follow the advice of John Adams. I have to be honest. Overall, I do like John Adams, but there are some things about his years as President of the United States that make me cringe. Still, that does not negate the good I can glean from him. I feel the same about Ronald Reagan and others.

When the newspaper comes out, do you read it? Do you take the time to learn about what is going on in your community? Do you participate in elections? Do you learn about issues or just whine about them? I have opinions on just about everything, hence the reason that I have this column. However, I still have to look at things objectively rather than just swallowing the proverbial Kool-Aid dished out by any party or lobby.

I feel this way even when I get “the sky is falling” type alerts from groups I wholeheartedly support such as Second Amendment advocates. I got one such email today decrying abrogation of gun rights by executive decree yet there were no details as to the problem at hand in the message. I don’t mind contacting my Congressmen as suggested in the email, but I need information upon which to base a rational decision. Sometimes the cries are legitimate, sometimes they are factually challenged.

I am writing this column just after participating in a two hour long discussion on the history of slavery in the world and eventually in America. It is because I have read on this topic over the years that I can speak somewhat intelligently on it and not be so incredibly emotional about it. I can not tell you how many times people of white and dark skin alike have gotten into heated discussion while I remained calm on the subject. Slavery was on this continent prior to Africans being introduced and was practiced by Black, White, and Native populations alike. I find the idea of owning another human being repugnant, but I also understand how slavery played a roll in world history, not just American history. Those who are factually challenged are generally the ones who are the most emotional about such topics or are willing to drink the Kool-Aid of their overlords of thought.

I cringe when I see people lament budgetary cuts in bloated, unsustainable bureaucratic spending. When looking at things objectively, it is easy to see that America has a spending problem, not a revenue problem at most levels of government. Those on government payrolls (and I used to be one of them) often miss the concept that the government as a whole needs trimming and therefore decry budget cuts. History shows what such unsustainable spending does to a nation. The factually challenged and self interested are again, usually the most emotional.

I encourage everyone to get involved, learn about your government, learn simple economics, study history, and responsibly consider how you vote. Do you want to “be a better man” (or woman) and a useful citizen? Then I passionately implore you to study towards that end.

Column for Feb. 10, 2011

"Thanks to God that he gave me stubbornness when I know I am right."

- John Adams

That quote has stuck with me since I read it recently. It has been my personal conviction for years. I remember a friend of mine telling me years ago (when we were discussing matters of interpersonal organizational politics within the Church), “That is what I like about you. You can walk into a room and tell everyone that they are wrong.” When I know I am right (and when I have such a conviction, I usually am, especially on principle, even if not on the minutia of details), I am stubborn that way. It is precisely that conviction that has sustained me through over four and a half years of writing this column, my internet radio show, and more recently, my television show.

I only wrote this because it was on my mind for a couple of days now. When you know you are correct about your convictions in matters of theology, history, politics, and the affairs of life, stand by them. Be open to correction where you are askew and ready to learn, but still be resolute. OK, on to the regularly scheduled column, already in progress, with a couple of topics in mind.

It was with sadness that I read of the death of Wilson’s Mills Fire Chief, Ricky Barbour. From my friends in the fire service, I saw pictures of the honor shown him upon the return of his remains to Johnston County. I was glad to see that his brethren showed him such an honor via pictures posted on Facebook. I’ve had several occasions to talk with Chief Barbour over the years, and found him to be intelligent, articulate, resolute, and having common sense. I never worked with him or knew him well, but these were my impressions of him each time I had the pleasure of speaking with him. The comments I read on Facebook.com posted by others were a testament to his leadership. I can only hope that the Town of Wilson’s Mills will have such a class act to follow his lead.

Did you have as big a reaction as I did when you opened your most recent electricity bill from The Town of Selma as I did? When I got my most recent paycheck, I started to write out a weekly budget for how to spend my earnings, as I do every two weeks. I figured that the billing period covered may be a heavy usage month, so I thought, “I’ll budget close to the highest payment I have ever had to make for my utility bill.” I had a few choice words to say when I opened the mail and looked at the amount owed. I was on vacation and out of the country for one of the weeks covered by that bill and it was 25% higher than the highest bill I ever got from this town.

I have read in newspapers for a while that hopefully the upcoming merger between Progress Energy and Duke Energy will result in lower utility bills for their customers. I pray that is the case, because I can not afford to get many more bills like this one. I make a decent wage. I make more money now than I have ever made in my life and I still struggled to be able to budget for this huge electricity bill. When my utility bill gets to be almost as big as my mortgage payment, something is seriously wrong.

One thing that I wish would come of the utility company merger is the nullification of the Electricities contract. I wrote about a year ago about how much more I was paying through the town for electricity (who buys from Electricities, who buys from Progress Energy) than I would have if I bought directly from Progress Energy as a retail customer. I am sure that this month’s bill would be even more than that $100 differential. In all fairness, my current bill was for 36 days of service rather than just 28 or 30. Still, that is a lot with which to sandbag customers.

If the town wants to attract more businesses and residents, then they have to do something about the high utility prices. Clayton, Smithfield, Benson, and other public power communities face the exact same problem. The highest prices for public power are paid by the small town of Hobgood in Halifax County. Hobgood has fewer people than Micro but is $2.2 million in debt on its electricity system, so the residents of Hobgood pay a high utility rate. According to one newspaper report, a $139 monthly bill in Smithfield would run $185 in Hobgood. Some residents have gotten bills of up to $900. My bill wasn’t $900, but it was sure getting there. Selma is not Hobgood, but something has got to give.