Column for June 21, 2012

Interestingly, every five years or so, the calendar repeats itself day for day.  June 21, 2012 falls on a Thursday just as it did in 2007.  Every so often, I like to look back over some old columns I wrote and see what the topic of the week was.  The more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes.

Five years ago, Selma was dealing with an upheaval and restructuring in its fire department.  There were some ungrateful, selfish, and childish individuals that did not want to relinquish their good old boy system, being opposed by some people who wanted to reform the old system for the benefit of and accountability to the town.  I would say that five years later, Chief Phillip McDaniel seems to have done a stellar job with what he has to work with in Selma.  There seems to have been an improvement in response and in our ISO rating.  I have heard no major rumblings about the department other than seeking to raise the fire tax in the unincorporated areas served by the department.

The crux of that column was about maintaining rational thought rather than being blindly ruled by emotions.  Ironically enough, I dealt with that concept a bit just within the last few weeks.

Five years ago, gun control legislation, backed by the occasionally spineless National Rifle Association, was being rammed through Congress under the guise of providing better background checks for gun purchasers.  Holy flaming dog poo!  I just dealt with that same sort of topic two weeks ago.  Gun control is a constant battle.  Freedom lovers have to be vigilant in order to keep resisting this incessant nuisance.  We have to say, “No, No, No, No” every single time it comes up.  If we say, “Yes” just once, we have lost that freedom, most likely forever.

Five years ago, school funding was a battle of irrational fear versus level headed common sense.  Wouldn’t you know it?  I dealt with that some just last week.  The subject of taxing internet gaming establishments for the purposes of school funding came up, “for the children” and the emotional hype that comes with educational claims of need.  Freedom hating liberals are going to try to fund school systems in which we attempt to prepare students to enter the world with ethics and fairness with unfair taxation upon what some consider to be a vice.  The problem is that once the government claims to despise an activity such as gambling and attempts to eradicate it but instead taxes it as a vice, it becomes dependent upon its very existence for a revenue stream.  It is the same paradox that exists with taxing tobacco to fund public health care systems.  Legislators want to curb a behavior by taxing it.  That taxation works somewhat to discourage the behavior, which drops tax revenue, so they raise the tax rate to raise revenue.  It is a vicious circle.

Five years ago, the Congress of the United States was attempting to mandate insurance companies include prescription drug benefits for RU-486, often called the abortion pill.  Just recently, we have seen the Obama Administration unilaterally require insurance companies to provide birth control pills at no cost to subscribers, even if it violates the conscience or religious values of plan administrators, employers, and benefit providers.  Again, the constant “NO” vigilance is required in order to preserve our freedom from government incursion and usurpation.

Five years ago, the county was being asked to fund a private therapeutic horse riding center.  This is a classic case of “just because it is a good idea does not mean it is something we should be doing with public funding”.  Just within the past few months, the Selma Town Council had to take some tough decisions on whether or not to continue using public funds for charities.  I realize that these charitable line items in the budget have traditionally not been huge, and there is actually some benefit to the people being served by the agencies.  However, the Council had to consider whether or not it was appropriate to spend taxpayer funds on nice endeavors.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

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 March 22, 2012

I have long been a proponent of repealing the 17thAmendment to the US Constitution.  That amendment reads, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.”  That amendment was ratified in April of 1913, and most of us cannot remember the national senate being otherwise.  Well, prior to 1913, Senators were chosen according to Article I, section 3 of the Constitution which states, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”  There is a big difference.  The original method of selecting Senators meant that the Senate was beholden to the individual states that created the federal government.  Since 1913, Senators have been directly responsible to the general population as is the House of Representatives.  There was great wisdom in the original method of selecting U.S. Senators.  The Senate was to look after the interests of the states, not the people.  The House was to look after the interests of the people, not the states.  It was a great balance.

In another section of the Constitution, “The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” (ArticleII Section 2).  That is a tremendous amount of power for both the President and the Senate.  Presidents negotiate treaties regularly.  They just do not have the effect of law unless the Senate agrees with a two thirds majority.  Why a two thirds majority?  Because under Article VI, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.  That means that treaties that are ratified by the Senate have the effect of law upon us citizens.  That is done without a bill being passed by the House, the Senate, and being signed into law by the President.

I have been reading up on several treaties that are underway.  If for no other reason than what I am about to write, we need to be careful about electing a president and senators.  Liberal, America hating radicals look for every opportunity to harm American sovereignty.  Sovereignty means freedom.  We the people have it, this nation has it.  But this will change if the following treaties are ratified.

The US, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, is negotiating for a US participation in an international criminal court.  This would subject American officials to criminal charges if a decision is taken to go to war without the permission of The United Nations and give nations like China and Russia a veto over our sovereignty to declare war.  The power of war is the very essence of being sovereign.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed by the Obama administration, and if ratified, would force America to give up half of all royalties it gets from offshore drilling.  We would give that money to the United Nations for them to distribute as they see fit to any nation it chooses, with only a single vote from the US as to where the money will go.  The UN would not earn the money and the recipient nations would not earn the money.  We would simply obligate ourselves into just giving it away.  Sadly, some liberal Republican senators are pushing for this ratification.

The administration is attempting to sign on to a small arms treaty that would force nations to stop the exportation of firearms for private use.  I happen to collect antique military firearms, and from nations like France, Switzerland, and Russia in particular.  This treaty would stop the flow of old military pistols and rifles into America for millions of collectors like me.  It would also open the door for total firearms registration.

There is a treaty that would ban “space junk” under the guise of stopping space debris and litter.  In reality, this would prohibit America from deploying a missile defense system in space.  It is colorfully called the “Outer Space Code of Conduct”.

The “Rights of the Child” treaty is designed to extract money from richer nations (read that America) to go to poorer nations, ostensibly for the purposes of clothing, food, shelter, and education of children.  The fund would be administered by a fourteen member court that would sue nations to that end.  That court is already suing over welfare cuts in England, so don’t think for one moment that it wouldn’t do the same thing here.

As you can see, the passage of treaties is nothing to take lightly and it is often overlooked by those who only focus on reasons like Supreme Court nominees when it comes to consideration of senatorial elections.  The Senate is a powerful body by design.  When a powerful body is complicit with a socialist presidential administration, as we have now, American sovereignty and money, as well as individual freedoms can be taken away or seriously limited.  Vote freedom hating senators and presidents out of office.  For that matter, every freedom hating elected representative you can identify.  Keep and restore American sovereignty and individual liberties.

Column for Jan. 12, 2012

It has been said that politicians and diapers both need to be changed every so often...and for the same reason.  As a father of two and another baby on the way, I can relate to that axiom.  In our area, we changed our diaper when we voted Congressman Bob Etheridge out of office last year.  Now, like a bad slasher film or Rocky movie series, he wants to make a comeback after just half of one term out of office.

Old Bob has been around a long time in North Carolina politics.  I remember after he decided to leave his position at the Department of Public Instruction to run for Congress.  I interviewed Mr. Etheridge on numerous occasions when I was working in radio.  I had a habit of asking tough questions, regardless of party affiliation.  I quizzed Democrats and Republicans alike with similar zeal.  When it became evident to Old Bob that I would not throw softball questions at him each time he called the radio station, he stopped trying to get free public relations airtime.

I have followed Bob Etheridge’s congressional career over the fourteen years he was in office.  When he did well on issues, I praised his performance.  When he did poorly, I was critical.  I believe in being fair and if I am willing to critique, I had better be willing to give kudos.  Bob was relatively good on Second Amendment issues, but he had a serious problem with staying within the powers granted to Congress.  He wrote and sponsored many bills that were patently unconstitutional.  Then again, most congressmen have that same problem.

One thing that Bob Etheridge was known for was bringing federal tax money home to his district for various projects and issues.  I remember seeing countless photo opportunities in which Bob was giving a symbolic giant check for road improvements, fire and police services, farmers, or whatever the current gimmick was.

I have relatives who literally were his neighbors and think that Bob Etheridge is a great, honest politician.  From my experiences with him, I think that he was the stereotypical, constitutionally illiterate, dishonest sleazeball who was more concerned with his own re-election than with the well being of his constituency.  Believe me, that has made for some interesting conversation at family gatherings.  The measure of a good politician is not how much money is brought back to his home district from Washington, D.C., but rather how much money stays at home to begin with.

Bob Etheridge was quoted in the News and Observer as saying, “I’m like any American right now – frustrated at what is going on with our tea party folks up there. I think they have pushed our country to the brink three times this year, and lost our country its AAA bond rating as a result of that."  

Say what?  No, Bob, it is not the Tea Party that has been the issue.  As a matter of fact, I am rather disappointed with the Tea Party candidates, in general.  After one year in office, they have not done all that We The People have elected them to do...to undo what politicians like you did while you were in Congress.  There has been the occasional slight glimmer of hope, but we eventually get the same old garbage that got us into this mess.  Still, I will take a flawed Renee Ellmers over a politician like Bob Etheridge any day.  We lost our AAA bond rating as a result of the reckless spending that has been rampant for the last two decades, for which the majority thereof, Bob, you were a member of Congress.

What irks me is that since the recent redistricting, Bob Etheridge now lives in the 4th Congressional District.  He wants to run for office in the 2nd District, which was the seat he recently lost.  For some incredibly stupid reason, law allows him to do that.  If I have to live in the 2nd District in order to vote for representatives from the 2nd District, the representative should have to reside within the 2nd District.  This is just another outrageous example of politicians writing the laws so that they themselves will not have to abide by them.

If you are not outraged by the current state of governmental affairs, then you are not paying attention.  Our government was instituted by God (Romans 13), and in this country, we were entrusted with a form of government that requires our participation and assent.  To that end, we must keep dishonest weasels out of office and elect morally strong, constitutionally literate individuals who will be more like statesmen than politicians.  But, do we actually have any to elect?

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 July 21, 2011

It is hard to believe, but this column marks the five year anniversary of my first column in The Selma News. When I first got the opportunity to write for the paper, I had run once for Selma Town Council, I was an active blog writer on the internet, and had an active interest in community affairs. I don’t blog anywhere as near as much as I used to for a number of reasons and I don’t attend all town council meetings like I used to. There have been a good may changes in my life since my first column here. The topics have varied from town affairs to state and national ones, and have included politics and religion. The people and events that have been the subjects of my commentary have changed over the years, but my core values of freedom, faith, and conservative values have remained constant. For that, I make no apologies.

I had one of those “no apologies for my views” brief exchanges just today with one of our County Commissioners. He was critical of those in Congress who seemingly refused to compromise. He quoted an unknown (to me) news source that quoted an unknown (to me) individual which said, "What lawmakers lack in congress is the courage to compromise, therefore they do not do anything." I, on the other hand, applaud those who do not compromise. Personally, there are many things on which I don't want compromise. Compromise is not always a virtue, it can be a weakness. It is when Congress does something that we get hosed with more regulation and freedoms eroded. It is when they do nothing that we are the safest from intrusion in our lives and wallets. Sometimes the best thing for the citizenry is gridlock. There is no founding document, principle, speech, or precedent that government has to constantly pass some sort of legislation (doing, doing, doing) in order to be effective or viable. Inactivity is often the best thing, especially in Washington, D.C. I feel that same way about our towns, counties, and states, as well.

As I mentioned, I have an interest in public affairs and even ran for town council twice. I was tempted to run again, but quite honestly, I don’t know if I can devote the time to a campaign or the position, so I stayed out of the running. Some of my extra-curricular activities have died down lately, which is causing me to ponder my next media exploit. On the other hand, my work schedule has been hefty. I had a 15 hour day today, and I was about to go to bed when I realized that I had not banged away on my keyboard to write this week’s column. Before my generic brand version of Tylenol PM kicks in, I figured that I had better type something and get it in before deadline. I have come up with a fresh column each and every week for five years. It would have been shameful to miss the five year anniversary column.

By the way, I have each and every column I have written still on my computer and have also put them online. You can find every single previous column I have written for The Selma News through my web site, www.troylaplante.com. I even have LaPlante’s Rants t-shirts, if you want one. Nobody has bought one in five years, but I still have them available. I do believe that I have the only one in existence until someone buys one. Yes, I made t-shirts available, and I make no apologies for that, either.

It is hard to believe that it has been five years already, but it has. I would like to thank Rick Stewart, the publisher of this fine hometown newspaper, for the opportunity that he gave an opinionated nobody like me to be able to write my inane babblings in a newspaper. I would like to thank everyone for their feedback whether positive or negative. I love both, believe it or not, especially when the criticisms are civil. I also want to thank you, the readers. I do not take it for granted that you actually read my unintelligible musings. I am grateful for the opportunity and will endeavor to continue being faithful in the work.

Column for April 14, 2011

There is an old saying, “Follow the money”. It does not take much to do so in the obvious financial and political shenanigans we are tolerating nowadays. We had people tarred and feathered, run out on a rail, and tossed tea into a harbor for less than we are putting up with today.

In looking at the federal budget battles, the budget is obviously about money. However, money is a means of gaining and keeping power. I grow tired of the argument that there is “non-discretionary spending” in the federal budget. That is, that there are entitlement spending obligations that can not be touched. Sorry, but if Congress set up a program with a law, Congress can change or abolish the law, thereby changing what is discretionary and what is not. This is why we read in the Declaration of Independence that people “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and not by Congress. If Congress can grant the right, Congress can change that right. Then again, most of today’s actions and spending by Congress are prohibited by the Constitution.

I take issue with those who believe that we need the government to take care of people. I have no problem with helping others. I find it to be the Christian and just plain humanitarian thing to do. I do not, however, believe in making people into total dependents upon the government for their substance.

As I recall, we are supposed to rely upon our “Creator”, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence rather than government for our dependence. I take issue with those who state that it is only “Christian” to provide for people and that is why we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, which is a euphemistic way of saying taxation.

A great example is Harry Reid, United States Senator from Nevada. In a 2001 interview he said, "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican." He went on to say that the Democrats' emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, is the reason he's a Democrat. Reid is a convert to Mormonism. Of course the vast majority of his stances run contrary to not only the doctrines of The Church of Latter Day Saints, but to Christianity.

I firmly believe that taking care of people is an obligation to be shouldered by the Church and families first and government last. The Church family has an obligation to look after people both because of Scriptural command as well as the precept of loving your neighbor as yourself. As I assured one old classmate from high school, “You will never have to eat dog food as long as you know me.” She was lamenting her fear that she would become a poverty stricken old lady who could only afford to eat Alpo.

Political gamesmanship happens at all levels. It is just more visible at the federal level because we are talking about trillions of dollars and a constant national media presence rather than billions or millions and state and regional media. Senior citizens are often the volleyball batted about by political gamers. Every action, however, has an equal and opposite reaction, according to Isaac Newton. Local governments and the federal government alike are struggling with the idea of Baby Boomers retiring. My own mother just retired about six weeks ago from her job of 35 years. I will be picking her up at the airport withing a 24 hour window of this column being on news stands and enjoying her newly found freedom.

As millions of such people are retiring, counties and towns will be struggling with revenue losses from the boomers taking advantage of property tax exemptions. Politicians used the promise of such exemptions in an effort to lure voters with money to gain power via votes. Now the bill for these exemptions is going to require payment (or lack thereof, as the case may be). It is all about power and money.

I have run across many such examples in the news this week, but I only have so much space in which to rant. Just remember, follow the money and associated power, and most of your questions about politics, whether they be in government, business, or even in churches will be answered.

Column for August 19, 2010

Last week I wrote about the facade put on by politicians trying to look good so they will be re-elected. This hypocrisy is especially strong when they want to look like they are doing us constituents a favor by not taking more of our money from us. I also hit upon the hypocrisy of pitching tiny tax cuts and not bothering to try to keep the tax cuts we already had but are going to expire at the end of this year.

I decided that rather than take the word of any one particular media outlet about tax cuts, tax credits, and provisions that are going to expire, I would seek out that information my own self and spend some time reading about them. I found a 48-page document put out by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation full of sun setting tax provisions that simply astounded me.

I despise the federal income tax for several reasons. First, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Working to involuntarily pay a percentage to the government is a form of servitude. Secondly, the tax code can be easily manipulated, amended, and made to be either rewarding or punitive towards or against a particular behavior, ideology, or political agenda. Thirdly, it is purposely lengthy and confusing so as to require professional assistance and cost an exorbitant amount of time and money with its compliance. The tax system should be so simple that you should be able to do your tax return on the back of a post card. Better yet, we should not have to file anything with the Internal Revenue Service, which would be the case with The Fair Tax.

If Congress were serious about economic recovery and freedom, most of the tax provisions about to expire would be made permanent. The lowest tax rate of 15% that was cut to 10% is about to revert back to 15%. That means that the poorest taxpayers are about to get a 50% tax increase as of January first. The marriage penalty for the standard deduction is about to make its re-appearance. The previously doubled per child tax credit is about to revert from $1000 back to $500. That particular tax credit provision helped benefit a lot of families, including my own, and now it is being taken away.

The "death tax" is about to rear its ugly head once again. People who worked hard to leave a large estate for their heirs will leave 55% less of it because the government will be taking that much of it. Over half of one's estate will be taken away by the government just because it is being left as an inheritance. To me, that is one of the most unethical taxes ever devised. People can work hard all their lives only to pay taxes on their income. Then they take those taxed dollars and invest, save, or purchase property. Investment dividends are taxed, and the property they buy with taxed money will be taxed annually. Then, those who were fortunate enough to have amassed even a small fortune to pass on to their survivors will be painted with the label of greedy while the government steals and devours over half of that wealth. By the way, for those who do save and invest for their futures are going to run across a return to a higher rate of dividend and capital gains taxes. This is all insidious and just plain evil.

On top of all of this, we are going to be hit with the costs associated with the new health care legislation. People like me who use flexible spending accounts will no longer be able to use those funds for non-prescription items, which will hurt the family budget.

Another big hit will come in the form of health care insurance benefit taxation. If your employer has a health care benefit, you will have to start paying taxes on the portion of the benefit paid by your employer. For people like me who chose an employer that has an excellent benefits package, we are going to have a much higher income tax burden as these benefits will also count as income.

There are too many tax provisions expiring or about to be enacted to mention in this column. Look it up for your own selves. We are going to get reamed by our already out of control, excessively spending government that thinks that you just don't pay enough in taxes as it is. We had a revolution in this country for less than this.

Column for August 12, 2010

For those who are on the internet a lot, like myself, you probably get a good amount of "spam" email. For those who are not inclined to be in the cyberworld, spam is not just processed meat, it is a term used for junk electronic mail. I got what I consider a spam email from Congressman Bob Etheridge.

I opened the email to see what old Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge had to say this time. Here is some of what he had to say.

"My top priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives have been jobs, jobs, and jobs. Specifically, I support common sense policies that will create an economy that works for the middle class so every North Carolinian who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given abilities."

Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with him so far. Is a Democrat allowed to say "God-given"? I would have thought that would be viewed by liberals as a "separation of church and state" issue. What else did Bob have in store?

"We need to rebuild America and restore the American Dream. Economic recovery in our country will be powered by small businesses. I have been working to enact eight separate tax cuts for small businesses to jumpstart hiring and boost the economy."

He is correct. We do need to rebuild America. Small business is indeed the engine that keeps America going. I find it amusing that both a man and a political party that have been supportive of massive spending and tax increases would recognize that tax cuts are what stimulate the economy. Tax cuts worked for John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Why then do Democrats feel the need to pass Cap and Trade, health care legislation, and financial regulation packages that will only increase taxes, increase federal spending, and increase government intrusion into the economic and business sector?

This is simply talking out of both sides of one's mouth. You can not have it both ways. Either you are for tax cuts or you are for tax and spending increases. If tax cuts are so beneficial, then why does Congress propose these piddly little tax cuts while refusing to make the previous tax cuts under the Bush administration permanent? The answer is easy to find further down in the letter.

Congressman Etheridge continued, "The recent recession cost us 8 million American jobs—and years of policies that favored the special interests cost us 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs. Although too many people are out of work and family budgets are getting squeezed, bold action to correct the failed policies of the past has started to turn our economy around."

This is a classic case of blame everything bad on George Bush. In fact, the current recession is primarily because of the direct involvement in the economy by the Democrat controlled Congress in conjunction with a willing President Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I am not letting the Republicans slide on this at all. Republicans had control of Congress for years and did not act like they were in power. They were also corrupt and spent money in huge quantities, as well. I blame them just as much as I blame Democrats for the huge borrowing and spending problems that eventually led to an economic crash. These spending issues were hugely magnified and sped along under President Obama and his far left, socialistic agenda. Etheridge is claiming he is working to solve the very problems he helped create.

Since I only have so much space in which to critique, I will choose one last item. Etheridge wrote, "Long term, we need budget discipline and smart investments like Pell Grants and higher education assistance and school construction."

I wholeheartedly agree that we need budget discipline, but we will never achieve it when congressmen like Bob Etheridge vote for spending programs that will cost trillions of dollars. As to Pell Grants, education assistance, and school construction, I have yet to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives the power to Congress to either spend money on these things or regulate them.

Bob Etheridge's letter is unfortunately typical of most politicians in office today. They take credit for things they did not do, blame others for their own failings, try to "have it both ways" in order to look good, and attempt to tickle the ears of a predominantly ignorant constituency. Remember this when you vote in November.

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 April 9, 2009

Gun control only disarms the innocent

It is tragic to see how many lives have been taken this past week in various incidents of killing rampages. There have been shootings in an immigration office in New York, shootings in Pittsburgh, in Washington State, and of course the recent mass shooting in a Carthage nursing home here in North Carolina. All of these incidents have made national news.

Of course there is the typical knee-jerk reaction to violence committed by individuals wielding firearms. What you rarely hear in such news reports is whether or not the perpetrators obtained the firearm in a legal or illegal manner to begin with. If the guns were legally obtained, then no new gun law would have helped stop the crime. If the guns were illegally obtained, then laws would have been irrelevant, anyway, since that is the definition of the word illegal.

Criminals do not follow the law by definition. For every nut job out there with a gun, there are millions more who are responsible, sane gun owners. So how do government officials try to keep nut jobs from attacking? They put further restrictions on law abiding, responsible people.

I have read about several attempts to curb your freedom in the name of protecting you. One has even been hidden in the guise of a health care rider on the spending stimulus bill. One way or another, your privacy, your freedom, and safety will be abridged in the name of safety and security.

Here in North Carolina, Senate Bill 664, deemed "The Rapist Protection Act" bill by opponents has resurrected the idea of "safe storage" of firearms. As a collector myself, I do own safes for storage of firearms. I want to protect my investment from theft. I do not want to prevent my access to them when needed. Firearms would have to be stored in locked locations, essentially with ammunition stored separate from the gun itself under this proposed law. There are numerous other insane requirements, including holding a property owner liable for what those who step foot on his property do.

In the United States House of Representatives, HR 45 is a bill that would require licensing for all people who purchase firearms as well as a record for each and every gun sale. Of course we already have laws that do that. The bill has language to seize further regulatory control under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. It used verbiage such as, "…to restrict the availability of qualifying firearms to criminals, youths, and other persons prohibited by federal law from receiving firearms…" If it is already illegal for these people to obtain firearms, then we don't need yet another law that does the same thing. Further laws only make criminals out of already law abiding citizens or seriously infringe upon their freedoms. What part of the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" is so hard to comprehend?

The stimulus bill signed into law requires that your health care records be placed into a huge database. People who have had any issues in the past would be heavily scrutinized and judgment calls would prohibit them from obtaining a firearm for personal protection.

I know of one person whose home was almost broken into this weekend. He lives out in the country. A burglar was at his home and attempted to get in through a window. Now this man is concerned about protecting himself and his wife, and rightly so. He wishes to purchase a gun for home defense. He served honorably as a Vietnam War combat veteran.

However, since he had a few problems coping with the horrors of war after his return to the United States almost forty years ago, his health records are available in a database and he will most likely be placed on a "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI. In case you think that I am exaggerating here, I also had a family member who was denied a pistol carry permit right here in North Carolina for having sought mental health care after a traumatic experience several years ago. That person's health record was available to law enforcement for determination of whether or not to infringe upon gun rights.

The bottom line is that criminals will get guns and whack jobs will use them if they want to, regardless of whether guns are legal or not. Further gun restrictions only harm law abiding, innocent people and produce victims. The story in Carthage may have been much different had someone who worked there been trained to use a firearm and had one available to stop the attack. Instead, it was a "gun free zone" and a lot of people died as a result.

Column for January 8, 2009

I was attacked by lesbians, but I survived

I can tell that I am going to have fun writing a column when I get attacked by a group of lesbians and homosexual men. People will make all sorts of excuses for their abhorrent behavior and turn the tide against someone who takes a stand for traditional family values.

I am active on the web site, Facebook. I have a lot of friends from church groups, political groups, family, and both local and long distance contacts on both Facebook and Myspace. I am more active on Facebook, however.

On Facebook, people often post links to news stories of interest. This one woman posted a link to a story about how some Congressional leaders are taking a stand against the radical homosexual agenda. As a Christian, a conservative, a parent, and a citizen, I have a major problem with the agenda of the radical homosexual movement. Don't get me wrong, I could not care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. I just don't want it flaunted in public, taught as normalcy, and certainly do not want my children (yes, soon to be plural) indoctrinated into such a paradigm.

There were several people in this discussion who were lampooning conservatives for paying attention to such a thing as an advancing homosexual agenda when we have a "financial crisis", war, and whatever else they find to be important issues of the day. I find the repulsion of the homosexual advance just as if not more important, since it is a destroyer of family, of morals, and the very order of nature.

These people were clamoring that they have civil rights and that these rights are being denied to them by ignorant, Bible thumping fundamentalists such as myself. I was told that there exists a two way separation of church and state, though it is not in the Constitution, nor were the words of Thomas Jefferson taken in their context for the usage of that term.

There are several things I noted during the discourse. The homosexuals attempted to minimize their agenda to three things: military service, monogamy, and parenting rights. There was no mention of indoctrination of children, demanding the accepting of divergent sexual behavior as a civil right, and the recognition of a class of people who choose a particular behavior as a protected minority class.

The last one is a civil argument that few are willing to tackle or be intellectually honest concerning. The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is a choice. Regardless of the spurious claims, we are talking about behavior, not about something genetic such as skin color. If such behavior is indeed genetic, we can make excuses for criminal behavior, as well. Perhaps Charles Manson has a gene in his DNA that gave him a propensity for violence and murder. If it is genetic, then he can not help that behavior and we should release him from prison, since he is not responsible for his actions. Of course that rationality is absurd, but it is the end result of that thought process.

My assertions of homosexuality being a choice, that the homosexual agenda is much more far-reaching than the three points, and that homosexuality is a sodomite, divergent behavior were never denied. Instead, the sodomites chose to find personal fault with the messenger. This is a typical liberal tactic. Since they could not refute my logic, the discussion boiled down to a lesbian attempting to claim moral superiority over me because her lover is a female veteran of the Gulf War, whereas I was never in the military. Because she sleeps with a lesbian that was honorably discharged for the armed services, I guess that makes her above reproach. She gains credibility for her lifestyle by association with someone with military service, in her opinion. Ergo, in her estimation, I am not allowed to condemn sodomy as evil. The argument is so twisted it is not funny, but somehow the tactic, as illogical as it is, gets employed by homosexuals and liberals incessantly.

When I pointed out the hypocrisy of her supporting a candidate for President such as Barack Obama, who has zero military experience, to become Commander in Chief while impugning my stance for traditional family values, the finger was again pointed to me. I was told that I had no moral grounds to say that a female war veteran and sodomite is practicing evil.

It is this sort of perverse logic that is used to excuse sin as a civil right. Those, like myself, who stand up and say that it is inexcusable behavior and not to be given the status of a civil right, will be labeled as bigots and judgmental. If people want to label me as such, fine, just stand in line. We will continue to face such moral decay and cries for civil rights where they do not exist. Resist the cry. Stand for righteousness. There is an ultimate judge to whom we all must give account.