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 5, 2012

I was just commenting on Facebook (find me there at user name troylaplante) about how the one race in the upcoming election in which I have not decided for whom I will vote is the District 7 (now that we have been redistricted and out of District 2) Congressional primary.  David Rouzer, a man who has a track record of fairly conservative voting in the NC State Legislature, and Ilario Pantano, a former Marine from New York who relocated to Wilmington and ran last election against liberal Democrat Mike McIntyre are our two conservative choices.

Native North Carolinians, in general, still have a heckuva bias against people who have relocated from the North.  I ran across this, and still do my own self.  I have lived here more than half of my life, was born further south than most local rednecks, and have views that are more in line with North Carolina secessionist leaders from the 1860’s than those of most people around these parts.  And yet, I am still called a Yankee.  Sometimes I hear the occasional carpetbagger allegation.  Pantano seems to be getting that latest epithet.  He is being called an opportunist for running for Congress in North Carolina.  Sure, the name Illario Pantano sounds like something straight out of “The Godfather” trilogy, but then again, the name LaPlante sounds like some French frog straight out of Quebec, which it actually is.

Pantano has received a lot of media attention for an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of grand jury session) for pre-mediated murder.  None of us were present, so we don’t know what happened.  What we do know is that the military legal session found no justification for the case to go to a trial, and that Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano was honorably discharged a year later.  What I do know is that he seems to be a conservative and claims to be my brother in Christ.  Those facts make this combat veteran just fine in my book, unless there are other facts of which I am not aware.

So, on the one hand, I have the choice of someone with a track record in a state legislature, which is not a bad thing to have for reference.  Then again, Barack Obama was a state legislator before running for a US Senate seat.  That is absolutely not reflective upon David Rouzer, only an observation that state legislature voting records don’t always matter to all voters.  The good news is that Rouzer seems to be conservative, which is why I supported him in his state level candidacy, and his voting record seems to reflect that.  On the other hand, we have a man who is seemingly a bit more radical in his stances (I often like radicals), and having read his platform of ideas, have a hard time disagreeing with him.

I find it interesting that the www.house.gov web site still shows Renee Ellmers as my Congressional representative, which she technically is.  Since the redistricting seems to be effective for the next election, I guess that I am still in District 2 and not yet in District 7.  District 2 is oddly shaped.  The old District 7 was shaped like one would expect.  I am still a bit stymied about how Johnston County and other surrounding counties got bundled in with the coast.  I did a lot of hunting online for an accurate map of the new Congressional voting districts and found old material, for the most part.  I did find news and commentary by various newspapers, but nothing concrete.  Probably the best description of the new district was found on the NC 7th Congressional District Republican Party web site: “The new 7th Congressional District covers much of southeastern North Carolina, including all of Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Duplin, Johnston, and Sampson Counties, most of New Hanover County and parts of Cumberland, Hoke, Lenoir, Pender and Robeson Counties.”

With my job, I frequently travel up and down the highways through all of those counties.  Brunswick County is two and a half hours travel time from my home in Johnston County.  New Hanover County (Wilmington) is a two hour drive.  When I think of voting districts, I would have never equated Wilmington and Shallotte with Smithfield and Selma.  Go figure.

I had originally thought to write about the upcoming ballot referendum for NC Constitution Amendment One, for which I am fully supportive.  What spurred my rambling about the Congressional race was the offer by Rouzer supporters to get a campaign sign for my yard, which I did for Rouzer when he ran for the state legislature.  I then gave the matter thought about how I had not decided for which candidate I am going to vote yet.  That is a rarity for me.

Column for Feb. 16, 2012

To many blind fools, this is going to sound very racist.  Actually, it is intended to be completely the opposite.  So, if you are easily offended, see racism behind every criticism of activity, or have such a small view of mankind that you can only filter everything through the lenses of your race tinted glasses, please close the newspaper now.

Every February, Black History Month is celebrated in America.  I enjoy history that has a focus upon Black Americans, I truly do.  I am fascinated by the stories of valiant Negro men and women who had a strong faith, love of country, love for their fellow man; who fought, died, and contributed greatly to the nation’s formation.  Such stories should be an inspiration to all Americans, not just Black folks.  Just as many Blacks were enslaved in America, they were enslaved all over the world.  And, as is little taught, there were indeed a good many Black freemen who also owned slaves in America.

I don’t want there to be a distinction between “history” and “Black history”.  When the history of America is taught, it should be taught in its fulness, not just with an agenda attached to it, regardless of from whence the agenda comes.  Black history in America is inseparable from American history and should be taught as part of the whole, not neglected or relegated to one month per year.

Of course there are some who believe they are owed special treatment.  While working at NC State University years ago, I marveled at the “Black Cultural Center” and wondered why people who fought against segregation at a public university would want to self-segregate on campus and demand special consideration.

On television, we have Black Entertainment Television and The Black Shopping Channel.  I don’t begrudge anyone their TV viewing tastes or cultural choices.  That is why there are now hundreds of channels on cable and satellite TV.  Can you imagine the outcry, however, if someone came out with White Entertainment Television and only featured programming with actors as white as Marshmallow Fluff?  

How about our tax dollars paying for a White Cultural Center at NC State University?  Should we have a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant History Month?  When we study world history, it is not WASP or Euro-centric, so maybe we need one.  Yeah, that would go over real well, I am sure.  I do believe that there is an incredible double standard in place.

I am especially disgusted when it comes to American politics and the race card is played.  I remember asking the question that if Herman Cain actually got the Republican nomination for this year’s Presidential Election and I supported him over Barack Obama, would I still be considered a racist?  Of course anyone who does not support Obama was told that we were indeed racist if we did not support him.  Sorry, but I didn’t care for the White half of him either, nor did I support Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Etheridge, or Kay Hagan.  All of them are fish belly white and have the same ideology as Obama.  Am I racist for not supporting them, as well, or do I just oppose socialism, communism, and values antithetical to the American founding?

I am going to quote a friend of mine from Wilson.  “Today, in light of black history month, when we watch black-achievement movies like “Men of Honor,” “The Express,” “The Pursuit of Happyness,” “Remember the Titans,” “The Great Debaters,” “Red Tails,” etc., we are inspired by people who transcended every obstacle, through persistence, personal sacrifice, self-determination, self-interest, and hard work, to become great. And to think they did it all on their own, while all of Hell seemed to fight against them, without an ounce of government assistance. [sic]”  

That, my friends, is the attitude we should take and how to honor greatness.  Yes, there are many stories of great Black men and women that we should celebrate in America.  Whether it is Crispus Attucks, Prince Whipple, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, or a host of others, we should celebrate their achievements and contribution to America right along side any other facts taught as American history; the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Would this not be the essence of Martin Luther King’s famous quote, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”?

Column for Jan. 19, 2012

So, we have the Iowa caucuses down, the New Hampshire primary election down, and we are about to have the South Carolina primary election. I know from experience that the Granite State residents are happy to have their state back from the political sharks, pundits, and media hacks. I grew up there, and every four years the little state was invaded. I got to meet some politicians, even when I was in elementary school. I remember talking to Ted Kennedy when he made his run for president. Thankfully, he never did get elected. Still, he had plenty of influence and inflicted plenty of damage on our country as a Senator from Massachusetts.

Four main players in the Republican race have now bowed out of the race. I suspect that more will follow soon. But with 1144 delegate votes needed to win the GOP nomination, New Hamster (as I affectionately call the state) and Iowa only account for about 38 total delegate votes. Mitt Romney (whose first name is really Willard, so I guess I understand going by the middle name of Mitt) only has 14 pledged votes so far with the other candidates not at all far behind. The race is still wide open.

I am truly weary of the press constantly touting Romney as the front runner and basically the most electable. Many in the Republican Party think the same. I am no fan of Romney. There have been way too many changes of position by Romney on important issues and he does not have a solid track record of conservatism for my taste. Still, if he does get the nomination, I may hold my nose this time around and vote for him.

This week, John Huntsman dropped out of the race. That does not surprise me, since he never really stood a chance of winning, anyway. Of course, he endorsed Mitt Romney for President. That is also not surprising, since Romney, like Huntsman, is a former governor, and more importantly, is a fellow Mormon. Even Mormons I know think that Romney is not conservative enough for them. Non-Mormons seem to either have a problem with the fact that Romney is a Mormon, or think that he is not Mormon enough. Personally, both are true for me. If he was a strong, conservative Mormon, I would feel more sanguine in his ability to govern according to my own values. On the other hand, I have some serious theological problems with Mormonism and some of their beliefs on government and the prevailing religious positions in our country, and that truly dissuades me from throwing support behind such a candidate. I realize that I am voting for a president, not for a savior of the human race, though I wonder if the current President knows that distinction.

I used to like Herman Cain, and as I predicted, the knives came out when he was perceived as a threat. Because Cain was a conservative, he was going to be accused of being an Uncle Tom, a sell out, or some other derogatory name. Just like with Clarence Thomas, I knew that the liberal establishment would attempt to impugn his character in one way or another. Sure enough, the stories of bimbo eruptions started to emerge. The opposition kept at it until he finally bowed out of the race. I don’t know if the last major allegation was true or not, but it took him out of the race. These tactics are not new. True or not, allegations and rumors can kill a candidacy. However, if Cain was a Democrat, the allegations would probably be a resume enhancement.

Michele Bachmann, though intelligent, attractive, conservative, and articulate, was never going to win. This country is just not ready for a female president. I liked many things about her, but as with every GOP candidate, there were a few things that made me scratch my head in bewilderment.

Yes, I mean that about every last GOP candidate. I left the GOP years ago. They were no longer the party of small government, thrifty spending, and freedom. There are few candidates that truly represent that except maybe Ron Paul. Even though I had a “Ron Paul for President 2008” sign in my yard last election (and may have one in my yard again), there are things on which I strongly disagree with Dr. Paul.

With this being possibly the most important election in decades for the soul of America and the opportunity to bring us back to sanity and core values, one would think that we would have a better crop of candidates from which to choose. If Mitt Romney is the best we have, God help us. Still, if he is the predicted nominee, I will vote for him just to help get the socialist, Marxist usurper out of the White House. The only great thing about the Obama presidency thus far has been that it makes Jimmy Carter’s tenure look good. I pray that both Obama and Carter have the same duration of tenure in office.

Column for September 22, 2011

As I write this week’s column, I am sitting in a hotel room along the North Carolina coast. I finally took a break from working on a project for my employer. I am a technician for a large multi-media and entertainment company. Sometimes I put in long hours, sometimes I travel, and sometimes during my travels, I have to stay the occasional overnight (or several nights).

It is part of my job to work long hours when needed. More than that, it is part of my ethic to do so. There are limits, though. I will have a life outside of my job and I will have extra-curricular activities. For instance, I volunteer with a local Cub Scout pack in Smithfield. There was a feeble attempt to start a new pack in Selma a few years ago, for which I offered to become involved in any needed capacity. Since that work never materialized, I became involved along with my eight-year-old son in the existing organization. I am sure that I will have to go through it all over again in four or five years with my toddler when he is old enough to get involved in Scouting. Then, when the “bun in the oven” is born and is old enough, he or she may well get involved in Scouting and Dear Old Dad will probably be involved then, as well.

Last week I had a weekend off from work. I got a phone call from a co-worker asking about a technical problem he was having. The technician on call had already been on the road that day and I was one of the few people who knew about the technology in question. So, I got drafted into working on a Sunday afternoon. In so doing, I had to blow off my commitment that day with Cub Scouts. That was the “season opener”, so to speak, for this year’s Cub Scout activities. I was not at all happy about it, but it was something that had to be done. After all, my employer supplies me with the job and salary that pays my bills.

On the way home, after working on my day off and missing my beloved Scouts, I had to stop by the friendly, local grocery store and pick up a few items. I took my less than twelve items to the express checkout lane, which was misnamed at this point. The young man behind the counter was obviously new. He had to constantly get help from other checkout staff no less than four times on one transaction. I don’t blame him for the problem and long wait. I do blame the company for putting such an untrained newbie at the register. I also blame something else.

As I was waiting in line for the incredibly long transaction, I could not help but notice that the couple getting the small amount of groceries and tendered the payment that caused the debacle most likely did not speak English as their native language and were probably from a land south of our nation’s border. They were using a WIC voucher as payment. It was the voucher processing that gave the young cashier such a problem, only because it was new to him. As I looked over at the next register, I saw a middle aged man paying for his cart full of groceries with a government issued food stamp debit card. I was less than thrilled to know that I was paying for their grocery purchases as well as my own.

In this present economy, I understand that a lot of people may be out of work. It is frustrating, however, to work as hard as I do and see my tax dollars supporting so many others who are not. I know people who have never worked in their lives but are collecting food stamps, Social Security benefits, disability benefits, or other forms of government subsidy. For those who do want to work, the government created the high unemployment situation with their own policies, and many just can’t keep up with the cost of living life with no job.

To make it worse, President Barack Obama is trying to push through yet another stimulus spending package and tax hike under the guise of a jobs bill. As I was explaining to a friend of mine the other day, this bill follows a pattern. I said to him, “Step one: institute plans that will financially injure the country and cause job loss. Step two: create a so-called solution to the problem just created with more of the same strategy that caused the problem to begin with. Step three: take an increasing amount of control over the population in the name of remedying the now increasing problem caused the solution to the problem originally created.”

I realize that this so-called jobs bill probably won’t pass through Congress, but I have a feeling that things are still going to get worse before they get better and I am going to see a lot more WIC vouchers and food stamps at my neighborhood grocery store. Maybe at least the nice but inexperienced grocery clerk will get better at what he does.

Column for September 8, 2011

This coming weekend will mark the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the United States. I remember well how I began my work day at my computer on the dining room table and had the television on in the next room. Since at the time I was in a small, rented, single wide trailer, the two rooms were open and near each other. I remember tuning to a news channel out of curiosity of the day’s events and caught a breaking story about a jet airplane that had hit The World Trade Center in New York City. I watched with astonishment as I observed live on national television, the second jetliner slam into the other tall building. There was no doubt that this was not a coincidence.

Just the day before, on September the 10th, I remember driving through Raleigh. I had an urgent feeling within me to pray. I had no idea why, but I had the burden. After a while, the Spirit of God said very clearly to me, “War is coming to your shores.” I had no idea that it would take the form it did the very next day.

I could sense the rising anger in America that day. It was almost palpable. Just as after December 7th, 1941, this nation heard of “a day that will live in infamy”, we had our own generation’s infamous day. Can you imagine during World War II the government issuing guidelines to minimize the role of Japan in the attack on Pearl Harbor? Ten years after the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians and public safety officials, that is just what our government is attempting to do. The administration of President Barack Hussein Obama has issued guidelines to federal government managers admonishing them to minimize the role of Al Queda (i.e, radical Islam) in Sept. 11th. The guidelines state, “As we commemorate the citizens of over 90 countries who perished in the 9/11 attacks, we honor all victims of terrorism, in every nation around the world. We honor and celebrate the resilience of individuals, families, and communities on every continent...” Furthermore, the document states that with Osama Bin Laden dead, there is reason to “minimize references to Al Qaeda” and that “Al Qaeda and its adherents have become increasingly irrelevant.”

Look, I don’t care what sect or organization from whence the perpetrators of 9/11 came. I do know that they were adherents to a radical view of Islam. Lately I have been doing more study on Islam and I don’t find it to be “the religion of peace” like we keep hearing. I find that their definition of peace is having every person in the world in submission to their god, whether by personal volition or by sword.

On June 4th, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech in Cairo, Egypt that was meant to address Muslims about the relations between the United States and Islam. He said, “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.” He is correct. If Muslims had not conquered Constantinople in the year 1453 and cut off the land trade route from Europe to India and China, Christopher Columbus would not have been sent to find a sea route to the Orient by sailing westward. In so doing, he found the North American continent in 1492.

Thomas Jefferson sent the newly founded navy and marines to fight the Barbary Pirates, who were Muslims that captured the ships of other nations. We built new ships for our new navy to serve not only in the Quasi-war with France, but also in The First Barbaby War. The USS Constitution was a frigate that served well against the weaker corsair ships that the Muslims had at the time. “Old Ironsides”, as The USS Constitution was nicknamed, is still in service today. I have personally stood aboard that vessel and hope to again soon.

Make no mistake that the attacks on the United States were about us, not other nations. Though there are terrorist acts all over the world, perpetrated by radical Islam upon us “infidels”, commemorations of 9/11 are about our own country being attacked by radical Islam. I can not imagine wanting to minimize the role of the responsible party. I believe in this so much that I have purchased and wear a ball cap with the word “Infidel” in both English and Arabic on it to make it easier for radical Muslims to spot this Christian patriot. I will never forget September 11th, 2001, who perpetrated the events of that infamous day, and why. May God bless America, the land considered by radical Muslims to be “The Great Satan”.

Column for July 28, 2011

“As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign.” That is what Speaker of the House of the United States Congress told President Barack Obama recently. He is exactly correct. I am not a huge fan of Speaker John Boehner so far, since he has sold us out on a few issues, but at least he is taking a stand on this issue. It is true that the President of the United States does not write legislation. The context of this comment was about the debate over the debt limit and budget.

For weeks we have heard about possible debt default by the US government. We have heard a bunch of Chicken Littles running around predicting that the sky will be falling on August 2nd. Of course that is nonsensical. All the government has to do is stop spending money in non-essential areas. Furthermore, even if we did default on a few debts, the rest will not also be in default. We do still have a monthly revenue stream.

When we run short on funding in our home, we end up spending less in areas in which we can cut spending. I have to admit that ever since the Town of Selma hosed us by changing the due date on our utility bills that we have had to dramatically cut back spending during the latter half of the month. We have to cut back also because of increased debt that we took on by necessity. Cars broke down, our air conditioning system broke down, and unexpected medical bills popped up. As my French relatives would say, c’est la vie. We just spend less on groceries and luxury items, eat out less, and now have things for supper that normally sit in the back of the pantry and we don’t want to fix unless we have to roll pennies in order to buy a gallon of milk. The government must do the same.

Here is another quote. See if you can guess who said this. “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” That was Senator Barack Hussein Obama in March of 2006. It is ironic that he is the one who is leading the charge to raise the debt ceiling yet again, claiming that it is irresponsible not to do so. I wish that he would take his own advice.

In our home, we are faced with two choices. We can cut spending and refuse to use any of our credit cards or we can apply for more credit and keep borrowing. I fully realize that unforeseen circumstances can happen to anyone and emergencies arise. There are times when borrowing is necessary. In our household, when our air conditioning system died, we elected to put the repair on our Master Card rather than sit in a sweltering house. One of the greatest inventions that God gave man was refrigeration, whether for environmental comfort or for food preservation. When my dog was too feeble to walk and incontinent, I could either take her out to the country and put a bullet into her or take her to the veterinarian to have her put out of her suffering and pay for it with my Master Card. Since I did not feel like shooting my own pet (her name was not Old Yeller) we chose the plastic route.

In my analogy, I understand that America will have times in which we do need to borrow. During the crafting of the US Constitution, this topic was debated. The founders knew that there may come a time when we have a need to borrow money, such as wartime. Borrowing is how we obtained The Louisiana Purchase.

However, bank bailouts, automobile industry bailouts, welfare programs, foreign aid, cowboy poetry festivals, teapot museums, bridges (or roads and tunnels) to nowhere, extended unemployment benefits, early childhood education programs, prescription drug benefits, socialized medicine, USDA loan programs, and the like are just unsustainable costs and not worthy of borrowing trillions of dollars. Like we do in our household, government must stop spending in some areas in order to take care of the essential obligations. Just because something is a good idea or a nice thing to have does not mean we can or should afford it.

This same principle applies to state, county, and town governments. Whether you are running for Congress, County Commission, the state legislature, or Town Council, take heed. The constituency is growing weary of unsustainable debt, reckless spending, and we simply cannot take it any more.

Column for May 5, 2011

Proverbs 11:10 “When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, and when the wicked perish there are shouts of gladness.”

I am writing this on Monday close to noon time. I just got back from UNC Children’s Hospital where my son had minor surgery. Because of that, we were up very early this morning to have him checked into the hospital by 6:30. I tried to go to bed early as well. That means that I cut myself off from all media at an earlier hour than normal last night. When I woke up early this morning, I found the big news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed. I was elated.

I listened to the news, read some quick news reports online, and even put something on Twitter and Facebook about my “shouts of gladness”. With my gladness, I must give credit where credit is due. President Barack Obama continued the policy of engaging Al Queda and gave the order for the raid upon the compound where intelligence sources say that Bin Laden was hiding. I am proud of our military for the job they did and grateful that President Obama had the courage to whack this scumbag. Congratulations.

The Defense Department has said that this was a kill operation, not a capture operation. From what I have heard thus far, Bin Laden’s body was given a rapid burial at sea to accommodate the Muslim custom of burial within twenty-four hours. So, to quote my all time favorite movie, “The Godfather”, Osama “sleeps with the fishes”.

Personally, I had hoped that Bin Laden would have been captured alive. Granted, he has been fairly ineffective and out of play for a while, mainly because of the manhunt for his head. However, his capture would still have been a great symbolic victory. I would love to have had him paraded like a captured king. Then, I would love to have had him executed and the execution be made available on a pay per view basis on television and the internet with all the proceeds thereof to go to the families of the victims of 9/11/2001 and the families of the US soldiers who have died in Afghanistan.

Since Bin Laden’s execution has already happened (and ultimately I am OK with that), I would have preferred that his body not been buried at sea. This is first and foremost to deny him any consideration towards Muslim tradition. Most Muslims seem to deny that Bin Laden is a true Muslim (as I just heard on the radio yet again from a Muslim cleric) and not representative of their false religion. Thus, why bother giving him that dignity? I would rather the body have been preserved in some liquid preservation tank like he was an alien at Area 51 and taken on a road show across the country like a carnival sideshow. We could have charged admission to see his corpse with the proceeds again going to the families of the victims of 9/11/2001 and the families of the US soldiers who have died in Afghanistan. I would have even liked the idea of his corpse being permanently on display at the new World Trade Center when it is rebuilt in Manhattan.

I listened to one whining liberal woman today decry how much money it cost the US to find and kill this one man. When I got the chance to speak to her personally, I told her that it was worth every penny. She decried how other radicals will just take his place and we will have some retaliatory attacks against our country as a result. Well, there was a string of replacement waiting anyway, and I say, “Bring it on”. They attacked us ten years ago (not the other way around), and I have not forgotten. I have also not forgotten all the other attacks by the likes of Al Queda and other such groups belonging to the falsely so called “religion of peace”. I am so tired of the “let’s not tick off the Muslims lest they retaliate for the least little offense” mentality.

Legend has it that in 1911, General John “Black Jack” Pershing used brutal tactics in The Philippines when dealing with Muslim warriors, including burying their dead with pig entrails and dipping bullets in pig blood. It is said that to some Muslims, dying with unclean animals like will deny them entrance to Paradise. I am all for such intimidation tactics if they work. It is worth a try today. Radical and extremist Islamic zealots only understand the use of brute force. Since the days of the Crusades (which were in response to Muslim invasion and slaughter) all the way up to the Somali Pirates of present day, we have found this to be true. I am glad that we just showed the resolve to follow through. I pray that we have the spine to stay the course. Either way, I rejoice in the death of a scumbag and found the celebrations in the streets of New York City to be just fine with me.

Column for March 24, 2011

Jesus said “You will soon hear about wars and threats of wars, but don't be afraid. These things will have to happen first, but that isn't the end.” (Matthew 24:6). That was true when it was first spoken; it is still true in today’s day and age. I constantly hear from various groups declaring that the end is near. One particular group is saying that May 21st of this year is going to be the end of the world and that they can prove it Biblically. Yeah, good luck with that one. There will be a lot of disappointed people on May 22nd when they are still here.

For several weeks now we have heard of wars and fighting, especially in northern Africa and the Middle East. It all seems rather orchestrated to me, though I am not much for conspiracy theories.

I was on a camping weekend outing with my son this past weekend, so I never got to hear the news that America had joined with France and England in the military actions in Libya until Sunday evening. I find it amazing that many of the same liberals who decried our use of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly find it to be acceptable to use the military when it is “their” President who is in power at the time. I love the hypocrisy.

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing a lot (but not totally) with The Nation of Islam’s “Minister” Louis Farrakhan in his chastisement of America for our actions in Libya. He whined about how America is acting in an imperialistic fashion. He brought up the fact that we are supposedly helping the military efforts in Libya on humanitarian grounds and yet we as a nation never stood up for the humanitarian needs of Darfur or The Sudan. Though I truly dislike and distrust Farrakhan, he is exactly correct about the blatant hypocrisy on the part of America.

I was opposed to our involvement in Iraq for the simple reason that I believed that we should have had a formal declaration of war prior to the invasion of that country and that there was no compelling interest of American national security. I feel the same way about Libya. Barack Obama is getting criticism from a few within his own party, such as Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who contend that a declaration of war is necessary for the President to use military force. Kucinich has gone so far as to declare that President Obama has committed an impeachable offense by employing US military air strikes in the efforts against Libya. Kucinich, though consistent (since he railed against George W. Bush also) is very ignorant of the role of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The military is his to command, not that of Congress.

I was happy to see President Obama doing almost nothing while the Middle East was imploding. I was happy to see him on yet another vacation and not proposing our involvement in Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia. These are not our struggles and there are no compelling US interests there that would warrant our military’s involvement. Many on both the right and left wings of the political spectrum were criticizing Obama for his inaction. I was happy that he was inactive until now, since it meant he could not entangle us in yet a third wartime front.

Though I believe that Moammar Gadhafi is a whack job that needs to relinquish power in Libya, I also believe it is not the role of the United States to facilitate that power shift. Unlike our new Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, I don’t see any compelling reason for our involvement. I do agree with Mrs. Ellmers, however, when she said, “The President needs to let us know what the mission in Libya is, what goals he has for the mission and what the plan is to achieve those goals. We must have a sound political and military strategy for our action in Libya and that needs to be communicated to the American people.” So far, we have not seen anything that has been clearly so defined.

As I stated concerning Iraq years ago, whether we properly invaded Iraq or not was a moot point once we took the country. From that point forward, we had to follow through. We will most likely have the same hypocritical posture in Libya. I do believe that the violence in their nation is horrid, as it was in other nations. However, it is not our fight. We have more babies dying in the womb on a daily basis in our own nation than there are dissidents and soldiers dying in Libya. I do wish that we would focus more on our own nation’s problems than that of other nations.

Column for Sept. 23, 2010

“It is my understanding that today, students will be required to watch a televised speech by President Barack Obama. Since I do not want my child to be subjected to political propaganda, I find it entirely inappropriate to force grade school children to endure such a speech. Therefore, I request that my son, John, be excused from viewing said speech and instead participate in whatever alternatively planned activity is being provided.”

That is the text of a note I sent last week with my son to school. It was that time of year again, the Second Annual Back to School Barack Obama Propaganda Message. Last year we sent a similar note. There were two things very different this year. First was that the upcoming speech got very little media attention like it did last year. All over the nation, people were upset at the President using the opportunity to peddle his propaganda, myself included. This year it was kept relatively quiet so as not to inflame opposition.

The second thing that was different was that I was told that my son was the only one in the entire school to have gotten excused from viewing the propaganda speech and ended up hanging out in the school office because the school made no plans for any alternative activity. I was told that the teacher actually laughed when she read the above note. I hope that was not the case, since I don’t take this whole thing lightly.

I would have no real issue if there was a short, pre-recorded message given to encourage students and that was all there was to it. However, knowing how politicians, and liberals especially, like to grandstand and take every media opportunity, it was not going to be the case. I read the text from last year’s speech. I have the text from this year’s speech in front of me right now as I bang away on my aging keyboard.

In case you think it was just an encouraging pep talk, here are a few things I found that are really just a progressive and socialistic agenda with a fresh paint job. “So, you have an obligation to yourselves, and America has an obligation to you to make sure you’re getting the best education possible. And making sure you get that kind of education is going to take all of us working hand-in-hand. It will take all of us in government – from Harrisburg to Washington – doing our part to prepare our students, all of them, for success in the classroom, in college, and in a career...That’s what we have to do for you. That’s our responsibility. That’s our job.”

Do you see the problem in that statement? On the surface, it sounds nice, but it is subtle. It is the “it takes a village” mentality. It is the idea of collectivism rather than individual work and family support to facilitate achievement. This quote embodies the idea that it is government we must look to as our savior and our source. It is especially heinous since the federal government was never meant to be involved in public education whatsoever. Even during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when it was suggested that the nation found a college for the public benefit, the idea was resoundingly shot down.

President Obama’s remarks were wrapped with plenty of encouragement to do your best, pursue your education, and take self improvement seriously. Again, that theme is not bad. It is the little bit of arsenic in the meal that is dangerous, though. A little leaven makes the whole lump of dough rise, as the Biblical example shows us. It is a socialist political agenda couched in a Tony Robbins pep talk.
.
An example of a good quote is, “But the truth is, an education is about more than getting into a good college or getting a good job when you graduate. It’s about giving each and every one of us the chance to fulfill our promise; to be the best version of ourselves we can be. And part of what that means is treating others the way we want to be treated – with kindness and respect.”

Of course we should treat others with kindness and respect. That reminder is always prudent. It is also true that there is a big difference between attending school and getting an education. I have become far more educated than some people who have schooling in certain topics because I have educated myself on the topics. I have had constitutional law discussions with lawyers who were woefully ignorant and looked foolish. I have met men who never took a computer course yet worked circles around the most certified of employees.

I am all for encouraging people to work hard, study hard, and be successful in life. At the same time I also recognize that there is no place for Utopian political ideas being spewed forth by a nation’s leader to subtly indoctrinate our youth. My son is learning that if he takes a stand for his principles, he may end up standing alone. I am used to it and am passing that value along to my family.

Column for August 26, 2010

I was at a loss about what to write this week, but one thing kept hitting me every time I read a newspaper, news web site, or local news report today. That was local spending. Every news source seemed to carry some story about local taxes, local spending, local grants received for more spending, and the list goes on.

During my perusing through my favorite sources for news, I found a report from George Mason University that showed that state and local spending in the United States as a whole has increased nearly ten times since 1950. Private spending has only increased five times in the same time period. What does that tell us? Government spending is out of control. Where does government get its money? From taxpaying citizens, which explains why private spending rose only about half of the government rates.

Guilford County is looking at another sales tax increase. North Carolina is looking at tollbooths on I-95. Cities like Philadelphia are requiring people like myself to pay for a business privilege license fee in order to have an internet blog. The cost of the license is $300, regardless of whether the blog is kept as a hobby or as a business, or even if the fee far exceeds any profits from the web site. That is nothing more than sheer governmental greed to feed an insatiable appetite for local spending.

Locally, I have seen grants and loans from the federal government for local spending on police and fire departments, schools and educational equipment, public library system computers, and local road paving projects. One major source of local money supply seems to be the US Department of Agriculture via loans and grants. I fail to see what local water systems, police department facilities, and road paving projects have to do with agriculture.

Just as frustrating to me is the idea that the federal government is making local towns, counties, and states increasingly dependent upon it as a money supply. Either way, the money is from taxation. Taxation comes from our pockets, not some magical, inexhaustible, deep well of cash in Washington, D.C.

When we get taxation on both ends, I am reminded of the admonition from an opponent to the US Constitution's ratification in an Anti-federalist letter written in October of 1787. The author identified himself only as "Federal Farmer" and was thought to possibly be Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, whose resolution was passed by the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776 declaring independence from Great Britain.

In this letter, Federal Farmer (in letter number 3) wrote, "…to lay and collect internal taxes in this extensive country must require a great number of congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the people; these must continually interfere with the state laws and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction till the one system of laws or the other, operating upon the same subjects, shall be abolished".

Basically he thought that two levels of government attempting to rule on the same topic would clash and cause one or the other to be abolished. Unfortunately, we instead have a huge codependency of one on the other. Both, however, have the same insatiable appetite for tax money. One government is following in the footsteps of the other and taking more and more money from the citizenry to feed itself. Local and state governments following suit have, as I stated, raised local government spending ten fold since 1950 while private spending by contrast has only risen five fold.

As recently as the 1920's local governments did not constantly look to the federal government as a source from which to suckle money. During Calvin Coolidge's administration (a greatly underrated President, in my opinion), there was great flooding along the Mississippi River, far worse than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet the federal government was not in the business of feeding the spending of local and state governments, even in the face of widespread disaster. Nowadays, a town can not pave Main Street or renovate a fire station without looking to Uncle Sam for money to do so.

We fell for this insidious plot decades ago and now it has caught up to us. Our federal deficit has grown (according to the Congressional Budget Office) by $4.4 Trillion since Barack Obama took office only a year and a half ago. States are going bankrupt. States are suckling more borrowed cash from the federal nipple. Local towns are raising taxes to keep up with their smaller yet nonetheless insatiable appetites for control and spending.

I have been decrying this for decades. Now we may have gone well past the rubicon of financial destruction. If so, we have done it to ourselves.

Column for July 22, 2010

I hate racism in any form. I don't care from whom it comes or in what direction it is aimed. Racism comes with a huge amount of hypocrisy, and we have been witnessing it to a huge degree on the national political scene. When racism is alleged, it is something against which there is pretty much no defense. Just the accusation, even if it is erroneous, brands someone with a label from which there is often no coming back. But I guess that depends upon who your political allies are. Politics does make strange bedfellows, as the saying goes.

In December of 2002, United States Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott made some kind statements about Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday party. He praised South Carolina Senator Thurmond for his long service, which included a bid for President in 1948. Thurmond ran for the presidency on a platform of racial segregation. He also voted against the Civil Rights Act and against making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday. The latter I do not see as racist at all, but that is another topic for another day. These comments, which did not particularly support Thurmond's racist views, were met with scorn from left wing hacks and media. Within about two weeks, Trent Lott resigned his position as Senate Republican Leader.

Just recently, fellow politicians honored another stalwart of Congress. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd recently passed away. Byrd was another man who had a serious problem with racism and segregation. Byrd actually recruited 150 men to start a new chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. Byrd is recorded as having written, "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side...Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Byrd also filibustered against passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd did eventually renounce his views, but that was well into his adult life.

I believe that it is hard to refute that the quote and actions of Byrd were overtly racist. And yet former President Bill Clinton excused Byrd's Klan activity as just something that Byrd did "trying to get elected". If you are willing to sell out your soul like this, it is not merely "trying to get elected".

Current President Barack Obama, a man for whose color Byrd's activities tended to show disdain, eulogized Byrd as a "distinguished gentleman" and a "Senate icon" that "climbed to such extraordinary peaks".

I guess one can be forgiven for being overtly racist but not for praising the career of one whom was overtly racist. Then again, that all depends upon the side of the political spectrum from which you come. I find that incredibly hypocritical.

When we hear something overtly racist such as the recent comments by the leader of the New Black Panther Party, "Minister" King Shamir Shabbaz, why does the same press that lambasted Trent Lott not snow up and cloud all over Shabbaz? Shabbaz expressed his abject hatred for Whites saying, "I hate White people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker I hate him…You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies."

Why have the same political hacks that skewered Senator Lott and gave a pass to Senator Byrd not come out against such hate filled evil rhetoric? Instead, the Obama administration has dropped pursuing a case against Shabbaz and his group for voter intimidation. It was a "slam dunk" case against these men for standing outside of Philadelphia polling places during the Presidential Election of 2008, carrying weapons.

A Department of Justice attorney even resigned over that case because the Department of Justice would neither prevent nor allow him to testify on the case. In his words he "was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against black defendants [for] the benefit of white victims."

Had the defendants been sheet wearing Klansmen, their actions would have been equally despicable, but I bet they would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the Department of Justice run by a Black man who reports to a Black President.

Folks, again, I don't care from whom racism comes or in what direction it is aimed. It is wrong, it needs to stop, and we should not tolerate it in our government, our churches, our community, or our families.

Column for July 8, 2010

I got a phone call from a polling agency asking me four simple questions. The first question was simply whether I approve or disapprove of the job performance of President Barack Obama. For me the answer was a no-brainer. I obviously disapprove strongly of his job performance. I also disapproved of the job performance of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush. Each had their strong points (yes, even Clinton had a few good points). Each had their negative points (Ronald Reagan had a few negative points, as well).

At the risk of being branded a racist for any criticism of Obama by those rabid, blind fools who drank the progressive Kool-Aid, it is hard to find much positive about the Obama presidency in my view. I have an adverse reaction to actions that are entirely antithetical to the Constitution and the nation's founding principles. With massive bail outs, nationalized health care, increased size of government, quadrupling the federal debt, unnecessary moratoriums on offshore drilling, the taking over of corporations, support of environmentalist whack job policies towards non-existent climate change, bowing to foreign dignitaries, and the soon coming massive tax increases, it is hard to find anything of which to approve. To be fair, the foundation for some of these things was laid before Obama took office.

The more I have read behind Thomas Jefferson, the more I have mixed feelings about him. However, from time to time I do find some quotes by Jefferson that are poignant. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." That does not describe American government today at the national, state, county, and municipal levels. It sums up my views and my answers to the survey.

The second question was whether or not I supported the health care system passed by Congress and President Obama. My answer was obviously that I do not and can not find anything constitutional about it. To quote James Madison, who was one of the biggest influences on the writing of our Constitution, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

That same quote can apply to the next question I was asked. Do I think that government is doing too much or too little to solve the crisis type problems in our nation? This is a paraphrase, since I do not remember the exact wording. Madison's quote in context was about the proposed expenditure of public money towards assisting people after a natural disaster. It also applies to private medical expenditures, welfare, public housing, food stamps, and the list goes on.

My answer was pretty much in line with Madison's quote. I did not find the constitutional empowerment for the government to get involved in a lot of its present activities. Therefore it is doing too much, in my view. The private sector and economy should be left alone.

The one exception I currently find would be the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, though it was not in the scope of the telephone survey. I have no problems with the government acting to secure our coastline from calamity. I see that as part of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare. I also believe that the financial burden should ultimately be upon the parties responsible for the incident in question.

The final question was simply that if the upcoming election was held today, whether I would support Elaine Marshall or Richard Burr for United States Senate? That was also a no-brainer to me. There are many things I have seen Burr support that I had misgivings about but many that I was happy about, as well. Elaine Marshall is a known progressive/liberal and I certainly have no love for progressivism or liberalism.

When thinking about issues of government action or inaction, always keep in mind the Constitutional requirements and purpose of government. The state and federal constitutions outline the scope of powers and limitations of government and are supposed to be our supreme laws to follow. I just wish governments would indeed follow them.

Column for March 11, 2010

As a parent of a young child, I get a lot of questions. "What?" and "Why?" questions abound. If my seven-year-old would only be able to ask "Who?", "Where?", and "When?", perhaps he could be drafted to be a reporter for The Selma News.
I have a lot of questions of my own. I have things I want to ask God when I see him face to face since He has not chosen to answer them for me here on Earth, in His Bible, or through other people. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask others, some of which are very private, others not so much. I got to thinking about some of the questions I would like to ask. Here are just some of them.

1. I would like to ask Barack Obama if he was allegedly a constitutional scholar and professor, why does he attempt so many things that he should know are totally against the Constitution of the United States?

2. I would like to ask the English as a Second Language class (ESL) candidates in front of me at the Wal-Mart check out if they can comprehend the sign that says "20 Items or Less"?

3. I would like to ask the check out lady at Wal-Mart why she lets potential ESL students violate the 20 item principle?

4. I would like to ask the same ESL couple dressed in designer, name brand (I read the obvious labels) clothes that paid for some groceries with a WIC voucher and then whipped out a one hundred dollar bill from a stack of money to pay for the rest of their groceries why they deem it appropriate for taxpayers to pay for their groceries when they obviously have the means to do so themselves?

5. I want to ask some child abusers I know that if I stop beating them violently about the face and head, will they stop beating their children?

6. I want to ask Fox Networks and 19 Productions what they were thinking when they hired Ellen DeGeneres to be a judge on "American Idol"?

7. I want to ask gun control advocates what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?

8. I want to ask those same gun control advocates how they plan on defending themselves against criminals when police officers are not around, when 911 response time is more than it takes to rob and kill them, and criminals who disregard such laws are armed?

9. I also want to ask those same gun control advocates that if people kill other people with baseball bats and cars, why they don't try to ban people from driving to the sporting goods store?

10. I want to ask extremist Muslim leaders that recruit and encourage young Muslim followers to blow themselves up and hopefully kill others in the process that if the rewards for doing so are so great and the action so noble, why they don't lead by example?

11. I want to ask credit card companies if their customers can not afford to pay the minimum balance, what makes them think that customers would then be able to pay the full balance as demanded when they get behind in their bills? Not that I have this problem, but it makes me wonder.

12. I want to ask Congress and the State Legislature if we citizens have to abide by a budget and can not afford to spend money, why they think that they can do so ad infinitum?

13. When my seven-month-old gets to be about ten years old, I want to ask him what he was trying to say when he made all sorts of cute baby sounds?

14. I want to ask God what useful purpose cicadas serve?

15. I want to ask Calvinist theologians why they think that their views are predestined and those of Arminians are not, since that would directly contradict that doctrine? If Arminians are predestined to not believe in predestination, does that negate the accuracy of the predestination position? Was I predestined to ask that question or did I do so of my own free will?

16. I want to ask Al Gore if he actually still believes in global warming and if he thinks that we are all really that stupid?

I still have a ton of questions. I have too many to type for this one column. I literally think of things like this as I drive around town or to work, and
while trying to fall asleep at night. Perhaps I need to keep my voice recorder or a notepad with me at all times so that I can make note of all such questions in the future.

Column for Feb. 4, 2010

Just about every year, one of my friends ends up asking me if I am going to see "the show". The show he refers to is The State of the Union Speech each January. Often times my answer is no, since I often prefer to read the transcript later rather than utter bad language aimed at the television. My friend is right. It is a show, not an address actually containing the state of our Union.

According to the United States Constitution Article II Section III, (referring to the President) "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." I look each year for a complying, constitutional message. Each time I fail at this endeavor.

The US Constitution does not require a speech. It does not require a specified time for the address to happen. Nor does it state in what form it must be delivered. There are some things the Constitution does indeed leave open to interpretation, this being one of them. Every President since Woodrow Wilson has grandstanded his views, policies, and wish lists before Congress.

Well, I got suckered into watching this year's address on television right up until the time I could not take it any more. I found myself shouting at the TV, "You lying sack of [censored]!" fairly often and finally just turned the show off. For you Obama supporters, don't get too upset. I often said the same about Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Not only do most Presidents use this address as a way of feeding their need to be an attention whore, they totally disregard the entire raison d'être of the speech to begin with. They pimp their personal agenda items rather than actually telling us what the state of our Union truly is. I want to hear real facts and figures about our budget, our military readiness, our national security level, and the like. Instead we get ideas about what programs to begin, expand, and what constitutional principles we should violate as a nation, almost all of which are not "necessary and expedient".

What amazed me this year is that as usual, the blame for everything wrong was put on George W. Bush. I am so tired of this tactic. Sure, I was no fan of Bush, but the things whined about in this speech can certainly not be blamed on Bush and were abject hyperbole. For instance, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."

No, we were not on a verge of financial collapse…at least not until Obama signed a so-called stimulus bill into law. We are more deeply in debt under his administration in just one year than we were for the previous 220 years of our present form of government.

Today has to be the kicker to the speech for me, though. Obama spent much of his speech touting the need to reduce deficits, freezing government spending, eliminating earmark spending, eliminating programs that are unaffordable or don't work, and tax cuts. Then today (Monday) I read the headline "Obama unveils 2011 budget with $3.83T in spending" $3.83 trillion dollars in one budget? That is a full trillion dollars more than the Bush Administration 2007 budget and $800 billion more than the 2008 budget.

Where are the reductions in deficits coming from? Where are the tax cuts going to be? If we are going to eliminate failed or unaffordable programs, why is Obama calling for a national health care system and increasing the budget $800 billion over previous year? This is incompatible with his speech, which was in reality a wish list for more government spending.

I have the full text of the speech in front of me as well as an outline compiled of the points he made for quicker reference. Quite honestly, I am disturbed by the contents of the speech just like I tend to be each and every year. I am disturbed that we have yet to have an actual statement of the Union's state of being. I am disturbed by the blatant disparity between the President's words and his actions. I am just glad that I resisted the urge to throw something at my nice, new television.

Column for June 18, 2009

What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?

Before I start my normal rant, I wanted to take a moment for reflection. I am thankful that more people were not killed or injured in the explosion at the Con-Agra Foods plant in Garner this past week. In my years in emergency response, I have never personally been to such a large scale conflagration, for which I am also grateful. I have a friend who was in the facility at the time, as I am sure may be the case with other readers, as well. Fortunately, my friend was unharmed. Other families and individuals were not so fortunate. As I continue to thank my God that my friend was alive and well, I also thank Him that there were not more people seriously injured or killed in that explosion than was the case. I invite you to join me in those prayers of thanksgiving and for the recovery and comfort of the victims and their families.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

I often ask the question, "What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?" I have been reading the headlines of various news outlets and am scratching my balding, sun burned, shaking head.

People often think that the nation of Iran just plain hates the United States. There are, however, many freedom loving people in that country. Just this past week, there was an election in which there was obvious fraud, and freedom lovers have been protesting the election results. A dictator never relinquishes power willingly. As Vladimir Lenin so eloquently put it, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

People are willing to risk their lives to simply express their outrage about their government's actions in Iran. Dissidents are being beaten, tortured, arrested, and suppressed. Links to the outside world and media are being severed. And yet citizens there by the thousands are willing to continue to let their outrage be made known.

Cross the ocean to America, the supposed bastion of freedom in the world. We saw a few "tea party" demonstrations. We had some "Take Back Our State" rallies. People are indeed demonstrating, but I do not see the level of disgust, passion, and outrage seen in Iran. We have watched our freedoms diminish incrementally. We have seen election fraud. We have seen outright scandal and cronyism, especially at the state and federal levels of government. And yet the outrage seems to be a dull roar compared to what we are seeing in Iran. Something just seems backwards to me.

On one news web site, I just read had this headline: "Former President George H.W. Bush: 'There's too much government intervention into everything...too much spending…'"

All I can say is, "Wow, George…ya' think??" Where was your advice when your son was running up our spending and national debt? Sure, debt and spending are far worse now than when Junior was in office, but a lot happened under the younger Bush's watch. In the breeze, I hear the faint echo of "Read my lips…no new taxes." Hypocrisy only goes so far. What parallel universe is this again?

I was astonished with another of today's headlines. Apparently, we have released four prisoners who were detainees at Guantanamo Bay and flew them to Bermuda for release. Let me get this straight. We took four men captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and released them in a tropical paradise. Instead of dumping them from an airplane with no parachute in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, we dumped them upon the people of Bermuda so they can swim in a tropical resort and potentially become British subjects with travel privileges. What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?

When the health care industry boos the proposed health care (read socialized medicine) plans under the Obama Administration, they are simply dismissed as "fear mongering". I would think that the ones who have worked in the best health care system in the world (regardless of what director Michael Moore has to say) would know better than a man who has never held a real private job in his inexperienced life. Eh, what do doctors know? Professional politicians know better. What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?

The only thing that has made much sense lately is the dismissal of a nepotism receiving public leach like Mary Easley from her over compensated, do nothing job with NC State University. Then again, having worked there for several years when I first moved to North Carolina, I saw a lot of over compensated, do nothing employees at that institution.

There has to be a trans-dimensional portal around here somewhere to get us back to our own parallel universe. But where to find it?

Column for June 4, 2009

Putting the right people in office is not a matter of race

I was just in a discussion about the political issues of the day, namely the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. I was criticized heavily for not supporting a liberal Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. I was asked if I "suppose America would be in a better state of being if we did not have those in office now? Should we maintain the white supremacist ideology that has tainted and permeated American government for too many generations as it is? Does diversity not matter; especially, when that is the only thing that is going to, even in the slightest manner, offer some degree of balance to the ideology of those serving in public leadership in America today so that we can move toward a better way of life?"

Here is the way I see things. I 100% believe that we would be better off without the current leadership in office, in the White House as well as in Congress. We have been on a downward spiral into socialism for years and now we are head first diving into it. Socialism is a failed system of government, not to mention an unethical one. The assertion that this is a matter of white supremacy is garbage. I could not care less about someone's ethnic background. That is the whole point of "all men are created equal". I vehemently disagree with appointing someone as judge, electing someone to Congress, or to the presidency simply based upon racial background or sex.

Following the Constitution and rule of law has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a nation of law and following law. As a nation we should not concern ourselves with "diversity". Since when should we forsake our rule of law for the sake of having a diverse representation? Let us take that concept to its logical conclusion. If we were indeed to have a true representation of diversity in our government, 12 - 14 % of our governmental employees, representatives, expenditures, and operations would be Negro. 14+ percent would be Hispanic. The majority would still be white. About 1 - 2% would be Asian. Obviously, none of this holds true in the name of "diversity".

Is the definition of "a better way of life" one that rapes the American taxpayer and funnels money and benefits the way of minorities in the name of reparations, fairness, or correcting any perceived (usually incorrectly) disadvantages? That is just plain unethical, fiscally unsound, and the lazy person's way out of their own paradigm of despair. It is a false hope. It is unfairly burdening my children, grandchildren, and all of yours as well, with massive debt and constraints far greater than those some wish to remove.

The values I espouse are the very ones that drove tens of thousands of white men to die in the name of freeing enslaved people. They are the same values that brought the Civil Rights Act. They are the values that say you can succeed if you put forth the right effort. Yet there is no guarantee of success, just the equal opportunity to try. The world and our culture are based upon the equal right to strive, not the equal right to outcome. That is socialism or communism and is just plain illogical, failed socially and financially, and one of corruption.

And yet we have Democrats championing themselves as the saviors of values and of the minorities in America. Democrats were the ones who fought to keep the enslavement of a race of people here in America. Democrats were the ones who founded the KKK. Democrats were the ones who passed Jim Crowe Laws. Democrats were the ones who stood against integration and wanted blacks to ride in the back of the bus. It was Democrats who fought to keep blacks out of the public schools. It is Democrats who keep telling minorities that they are not smart enough, not good enough, and not able to make it in this country without the help of the government at the expense of everyone else. That is just one form of enslavement for another. Physical enslavement has been replaced with a profound dependency upon Uncle Sam.

We, as Americans, should be more concerned with what is best for our nation, not what is the best make up of ethnicity of our representation. Good representatives will do their job regardless of the color of their skin. Having a black man in office does not guarantee good results for blacks. I have no regard for white folks in office, either. I care about their VALUES, not their skin color. If their values are correct, their actions will be correct for the nation, not one particular group. I will vote for (and have) a black man or woman who has the right core values over an ignorant, liberal white guy any day.

Column for May 21, 2009

United States being prepared for the New World Order and the end times

Sometimes I can relate to the Prophet Jeremiah of ancient Israel. He had a job given to him by God to speak words of warning to a rebellious nation. The sad thing is that he was even told that his words would not be heeded. He uttered words of warning without much effect on a nation headed towards destruction.

Over a year ago, I got a feeling of impending calamity that was greater than usual. I had been sounding warnings not only in the political arena but also in the church world for years. In case you are wondering why I would interest myself in both subjects, I will quote one ministry that I have heard numerous times on a radio program. "Politics determines how we live here on earth. Religion determines how we will live forever."

I have known for years that the nation was going to slide towards immorality and financial ruin. I knew it by simply watching the government and our nation as a whole. I also saw the same thing by watching the state of the church in America. As the churches go, so go the people, and so goes the nation. Years ago, we all saw prominent ministers with huge television followings fall and a decay in moral standards in the church in general. In recent years, sexual immorality has plagued ministers. Catholic priests, famous personalities, and not so famous ministers alike, some of whom I have known personally, have fallen into sin with sex and money.

This past year, I have really shied away from prolific writing, blogging, talk shows, and message forums for which I had become known and to which I dedicated a lot of my time. The time to see what I had warned against was going to come to pass and quite frankly I did not want to pop a blood vessel spending the energy dwelling upon such.

I have been reading up on church history lately. As I have stated in this very column, I have also been reading a lot of American history and founding documents, especially behind those who wrote those documents. The more I read, the more I am amazed at how warnings have come for literally hundreds of years and yet people do not respond. Nor do they recall history.

I truly attempt to tread lightly on the church history and warnings against abuses in Christendom, using wisdom where I can. Sometimes, however, I just have to stomp on a few grapes and become the winepress. In politics, I have a similar tendency to be blunt but have a more reckless attitude. Believe it or not, the two are oft intertwined.

Just Monday, I was reading the notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rufus King warned on August 7th, "A great vice in our system was that of legislating too much." I have decried greatly legislation that even our own Congressman has sponsored. I have decried state legislation that has limited liberty and punished average people. I have decried local government regulation that extended authority, curbed freedom, and taxed the citizenry greatly. Obviously, this is not a new concept, considering that Rufus King uttered that warning almost 221 years ago.

I believe in fairness, so I will not point a finger exclusively at the Obama Administration on the nation level, or at the Perdue Administration on the state level. When George W. Bush was pushing legislation running up debt at an unprecedented level, I squawked. When I saw the effort to double the national debt (which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate) in just the first 100 days in office I squawked about the Obama Administration, too. Obama proposes to double the debt again within 10 years and in his own words, is "unsustainable".

In some trains of theological thought, there will be a one world dictatorship and a one world economic system. The fact is that this could never happen with an America that is economically strong. We could only succumb to this idea if we were in a position of great weakness. If this is theologically accurate, then I can see that this nation is being set up to accept just that very thing.

Just as Jeremiah had to watch Nebuchadnezzar besiege Israel, I have felt as he did in watching my country being besieged, just by other means.

Column for Feb. 19, 2009

Congratulations, my fellow Americans. The United States government now has more debt than the entire annual gross domestic product of the entire world combined.

I was asked to give Obama a chance. When I declared that he is a socialist and was going to bankrupt America, I was told that I was just plain unfair. With the non-stimulus bill that is going to be law, we just mortgaged the future of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Many have dubbed the so-called stimulus bill the "porkulus" bill, and rightfully so. Even the Congressional Budget Office has declared that the stimulus spending effects on job growth will be miniscule.

With so many business concerns being taken over or even funded by the government, I have actually seen some fools cheer. Just this weekend, I was part of an internet discussion. One poor, misguided soul named Hannah was heralding the end of capitalism with the non-stimulus bill. She said, "Hurray! The end of capitalism! Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Off with the chains of capitalism and then we will have real freedom."
The sad thing is that she meant it. She declared that the election of Barack Hussein Obama was a mandate for a change of the type of government, saying that those who cleave to the Constitution are "outmoded". Of course there was the obligatory liberal twaddle of blaming George Bush for war spending and any other leftist nonsense she could muster with her diminished thought processing ability.

To the concept of blaming Bush for war spending and the so called mandate I said, "The "war debt" combined for the past decade is dwarfed by the liberal spending of the non-stimulus spending about to hit. Do you consider the Constitution to be "outmoded"? If that founding document is outmoded, then I will be happy to be considered such, as well."
Apparently, to those who must have failed civics class in school, if you do not support democracy, then you are an imbecile. I am told that accepting Obama's policies are merely the end result of democracy in action, regardless of the Constitution or the evils of socialism.
I want to make this point clear. The United States is not now nor has it ever has been a democracy. This nation is a representative republic. My five year old is learning to recite The Pledge of Allegiance, which has the phrase "...and to the republic for which it stands". I shall ensure that he understands what that means. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". There is a huge difference between a republic and a democracy. In reading the notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it is clear that the founding fathers abhorred democracy.

It is impossible to be a true patriot and be a liberal at the same time. Ironically, I find that liberals often defend their characterizations of the Bush/Reagan/Bush era as patriotic. I personally have a lot of criticism for the Bushes as well as some of Reagan's policies. However, my criticisms are based upon an established standard rather than irrational, erroneous representations of an impossible Utopian society. This one woman actually called herself a "liberal patriot". One can not be a patriot and be antithetical to the very foundation of your nation and its core values.

I find it ironic that many liberals bash capitalism, big business, and the quest for profit while at the same time laud socialism, big government, and the quest for monetary control over its subjects. With all of its inherent flaws, mainly because of the sinful nature of man, capitalism is the best system of economics for all of mankind.

Capitalism has brought this nation from being a developing nation to being an economic powerhouse in the world. It has caused a fraction of the world's population to be the innovators in business and modern society. We have developed technology faster and advanced science further than any other nation on the planet as a result of pursuing financial gain as a reward.

No other nation on earth is more generous to charitable organizations, builds more hospitals, has built a better health care system, brought wealth to more people, or financed the spread of the Gospel more than the United States. All of this was made possible by the positive benefits of capitalism.

The national debt with which we are now saddled as well as the increasingly unconstitutional spending and governmental control now threaten to totally destroy the greatest republic in human history. Watch for resistance movements emerge as more and more states rediscover the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Column for Feb. 5, 2009

Come on, let me hear a great big Amen, my brothers and sisters!

The Triangle area made history of its own for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. The Triangle viewing area had the highest ratings and number of viewers in the entire country for the inauguration ceremony. Of course most of us were snowed in that day, so it allowed us the opportunity to watch television more than most of the country. Make no mistake that regardless of your opinion of the man, the inauguration of Barack Obama as President was indeed an historic occasion.

I watched the ceremony, along with my wife and mother-in-law. My five year old, for some reason, could not have cared less and played with his toys, instead. Immediately following the inauguration ceremony, I published an observation with some commentary on the internet that I felt that the closing benediction by a black minister was patently racist in nature. In a day and time when the inauguration of a (half) black President was supposed to signal a healing in race relations, I found it in bad taste, bad judgment, and inappropriate for a man to pray in the name of my Lord and Savior and indict an entire race of people, namely Caucasians, with an insult. I could not believe the amount of comments I got from around the country and around the world. Literally thousands of people read my commentary on an obscure web site and skewered me over my observation and assertion. My commentary is nothing new and has been pretty much written here in the past. But because I had the audacity to take note that the comment was racism (as have many others, as I later found out from reading news reports after I had already made my commentary) and stand by my comments, I was ridiculed, written about, scoffed, and insulted.

The "reverend" Joseph Lowery is a prominent black minister from Alabama, was active in the civil rights movement (for which I give full support), and has spoken at such events as the funeral for Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, he has also been outspoken in support of supposed civil rights for sodomites and supports civil unions. Joseph Lowery delivered the benediction, and gave the following quote which even made Barack Obama visibly annoyed.

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen."

The underlying assertion is that whites do not embrace the things that are right and oppress the other ethnic groups so mentioned. Sure, the line is catchy and is a line from an old Blues song, or so I read. However, how can anyone seriously expect to be taken seriously as an advocate for racial harmony, reconciliation, or parity when making hateful remarks in front of millions of people in attendance and many more millions on television that only serve to "pick at the scab" of bigotry? I found the comment to be racist in nature and entirely inappropriate, and I called it as such.

Not only did I get comments from people who are rabid left wing Obama supporters, I also got comments from people claiming to be Native American, black, and Caucasian who also found the comment to be inflammatory and inappropriate for the same reason. I was amused when I was told that I was narrow minded and was a racist for pointing out racism. Hey, I point out racism by "whitey", too, and did so on the same internet page. I got comments from people who whether as a sick joke or just to stir the pot that were extremely racist, full of hate, or were ethnic jokes. I deleted a good many comments that I found either patently offensive, just plain wrong, or not germane to the topic at hand. Of course by deleting comments, I was then accused of censorship and not honoring First Amendment rights. Since the First Amendment only applies to government actions, not mine, I slough off such criticisms.

The bottom line is this, as I wrote on the internet. The comment was "just wrong and in itself racist. I despise racism, and I do not care from whence it comes." If people truly expect to be treated with total parity and accepted as equals in society, then they need to stop fanning the flames of racial hatred with such attitudes and remarks. Now, can you say Amen?