Column for May 24, 2007

Are people waking up to reality?

I have watched two Presidential debates in the past couple of weeks. I personally pay no attention to the Democrat debate(s) since I pretty much already know what to expect. I have little or no interest in socialists and only wish to see their defeat. Unfortunately, there may not be that much of an alternative.

For starters, I will state that I am not a registered Republican. As it has been said so adequately by others, I did not leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me. They also left millions of others for the sake of power and political expediency. From what I can tell, the Democrat Party has slid left to be completely socialist and the Republican Party has slid left to fill the vacuum. At one time, I thought that the GOP was where the Democrats were in the 1960's. Now, I believe that they are where the Democrats were in the 1970s, which is even worse.

As a columnist, blogger, someone active in the community, and talk show host, I get to talk to people who are authors, politicians, theologians, and just plain citizens with an opinion. What I am finding is that those who are liberal (don't confuse liberal with someone who supports liberty) are increasingly for socialism and those who are so called conservative are becoming increasingly hard core right wing. I am finding people of increasing numbers who are outside the mainstream two party political system. Many of those who have a Christian world view find themselves at odds with the party who courts their favor then goes on to do as they see fit. This cycle repeats itself every four years.

The people I have been reading behind and conversing with, to a person, have absolutely had enough of politics as usual. The polls taken after the last two GOP debates have shown strong support for the one real "black sheep" of the party, Ron Paul. Ron Paul, a Representative from Texas, is without a doubt, the most conservative man running for President. He also seems to be drawing the most controversy. His campaign exemplifies the term "grass roots". Unlike the so called major candidates, he has relatively little money and broad support. Most of his support is found on the internet. His campaign is on the net unlike any other campaign I have ever seen previously.

Though I personally am a supporter of Ron Paul, I am not going to be a "Paul Pimp" in this column today. My point is that conservatives that I have been speaking with have really been taking a hard line stance in their positions and choices about for whom to vote. They have also been extremely active in showing their support. I don't know if it is the exposure to some alternative media sources, the fact that they are watching their civil liberties and money taken from them regularly, or just being tired of the liberal onslaught day in and day out that has been the catalyst. The liberal media that I continuously run across is certainly more rabid in their approach than I have ever seen, and is much more blatant about their socialist policies. The nation has incrementally slid towards Gomorrah over the years and some seem to believe that the country is ripe for plucking from its roots.

With that liberal onslaught, many conservatives have risen up in the public square and from obscurity. People who were previously unknown have been making ripples on the pond surface. The backlash against the socialist policies of the left is growing larger and larger. The leftist media outlets are losing market share like never before. Left wing web sites have been increasingly bitter, vile, and crude.

Political pundits and conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh are saying that there is an 80% chance that Hillary Clinton will be elected to the Presidency. Is this the reason for liberty loving Americans actually having spine enough to act like Americans? I certainly think the threat posed by socialists in this nation is giving a wake up call to many to at least stand erect and work to hold off the total collapse of America as we know it. Then again, the America we know is certainly not the America envisioned by those who founded her. I just hope that the lucidity is not too little, too late.

A street was named after my column

Column for May 17, 2007

The ACLU is more active than you think

As readers know, the ACLU has gotten some high profile coverage in this newspaper as it relates to interactions with the Town of Selma. Even though I attend most all town council meetings and write for the paper, I still have to wait to read the latest news in this paper.

For this reason, I have performed a few covert operations of my own. I did some research as well as surveillance. When nobody was around, I was able to perform my own "Super Secret, Secret Squirrel" type intelligence gathering. It turns out that the ACLU has a long history in this town as well as surrounding towns.

The first thing I learned was that former town manager Jeff White was fired because of his name. The ACLU threatened to sue if the town retained Mr. White, since they thought it was offensive to all minorities to have our top town employee not only being Caucasian, but his name exemplified the idea of White dominance. When the town was looking for a replacement manager, the ACLU assented to hiring Stan Farmer. It seems that the name Farmer can apply to any race and not make others feel left out. Obviously, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Caucasians can all labor as farmers. Thus, it was deemed acceptable to replace Mr. White with Mr. Farmer. All this time, I thought it was just that the town council members hated the movie, "Reservoir Dogs".

Another ACLU intrusion was into the Selma town motto of being "The Antique Mecca of the South". It seems that the ACLU took the side of many Muslims in the South who protested the use of that phrase. If we did not become "A Charming Place to Be", we would not only be the object of jihad, but some legal activity.

Apparently, it was confusing as to which way to face while performing ritualistic prayers. Some people in Virginia pointed their prayer rugs along I-95 South, people in Raleigh towards I-70 East, and people in South Carolina towards I-95 North. Still others retained the true direction of the true Mecca. All this time, I thought that the motto was dropped because it was a bit of a cliché, not to mention that it really could be viewed as offensive to Islam. It is amazing the things you can learn from investigative reporting.

Smithfield had a similar issue with names some time ago. The Ham and Yam Festival was not originally going to be so named. At first, it was going to be named for products actually grown here in North Carolina. The festival was going to be called "The North Carolina Barbecue and Sweet Potato(with an "e" if you are Dan Quayle) Festival". Besides the obvious problem of not being able to fit all of that title onto a banner, much less a good looking t-shirt, the ACLU got involved in that one, too.

It seems that the term "barbecue" was offensive to several people. The list of plaintiffs include women named "Susie Q" who thought it wrong for women named Barbie to be taking their place of prominence. Others who grill and char dead animals over coals or propane wanted to own the word "barbecue", even though they are actually "grilling".

Lastly, restaurant owners in the western part of North Carolina who serve far inferior roast pork with ketchup, teamed up with South Carolina eateries who inexplicably use some weird mustard, in a class action suit facilitated by the ACLU. They found the use of barbecue offensive to their inferior food products.

The organizers of the event did not want to cancel the festival and already had dedicated the event to dead pigs, so they started to rename it Ham and…something. In order to avoid some future lawsuit against the use of the term "sweet potato(with an "e" if you are Dan Quayle)" and to shorten the name, the festival organizers borrowed a Yankee term that just happened to rhyme with ham, and thus we have the "Ham and Yam Festival".

If you thought that the ACLU was only interested in squashing public prayer, you are mistaken. The proof is in the research. I have contacted the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU for an interview and they have not yet responded to accept or decline. I can only take that as a lack of interest on their part.

Column for May 10, 2007

Selma: A Curious Place to Be

Of all the towns I could have picked to live in, I sure did choose an interesting town. There never seems to be a shortage of things with which to keep my curiosity going. This year looks like it is shaping up to be one of interest to "A Charming Place to Be" unlike I have seen in years.

By the time that this column is published, we will most likely have found out that the bond issue that was on Tuesday's ballot passed. I have already voiced and written my opinion on that bond here and on the internet, and will have voted accordingly.

Another news item that you read about last week and will have happened already is the formal resignation of Selma Town Councilman, Jeff Weaver. I wish to publicly share a sentiment that I shared privately with Jeff. I do this because he deserves it, and I wish to give honor to whom honor is due.

There were some tough decisions that needed to be taken over the past year plus in this town. Jeff was one Councilman who took a hard stand on some unpopular positions. I was pleasantly surprised to see him express some contrarian opinions rather than be servile and mute. Regardless of whether I agreed with him or not on his decisions, he took them and stood by them. I am thankful for his service to the town as such.

This is something that I look for in an elected representative. I certainly hope that this is the same sort of mentality that the whole Council will use in deciding who, if anybody, will replace Mr. Weaver for the remainder of his term.

One thing I am going to be looking for in our Council is whether or not they find a spine and decide to fight the ACLU over the issue of public prayer rather than remain obsequious. I was dismayed at the policy adopted by the Council in closed session that "the town will remove prayer from its agenda and it will not be part of public business."

As of this writing, a poll on The Selma News' web site is 25 to 1 in favor of keeping prayer as part of the town meetings. Instead of adopting the policy of waiting to see what the outcome will be with other towns or counties as they fight the ACLU, the town leaders need to find a spine, exercise the faith that they proclaim in their own lives, and not allow a Communist (yes, they were literally founded for the expressed purpose of spreading Communist principles. Contact me for more information) organization to dictate how we conduct business in our town. The ACLU does not live in this town, has no vested interest in our town's affairs, and should not be allowed to decide our destiny as Selmites.

By the way, I have often wondered what the proper term is for residents of Selma. There are Smithfielders, Princetonians, Johnstonians, and Apeckers in the region. I guess Selmites works for me. If anyone has a better term, please let it be known.

A few other items of interest to many in town are the annexation plans that have passed a Council vote, the soon to expire reprieve on condemnation plans for homes that are substandard, and the public nuisance law suits filed against two convenience stores in town. It looks like the town may be up against some legal action, whether it is action taken by the town or against it.

The amazing thing about the willingness to move forward with legal issues and the expense thereof is that the Council has voted to knuckle under to ACLU pressure when its legal expenses would most likely be underwritten by groups like The Alliance Defense Fund, just as in Forsyth County.

I find it hypocritical to not take a fight with no financial consequence but the potential to preserve autonomy, yet continue with efforts that will cost the town tax dollars. I am not debating the merits of those aforementioned actions, just comparing them to the ACLU situation.

One thing for certain, the Town of Selma, "A Charming Place to Be", is certainly becoming "A Curious Place to Be", and I get to live in the middle of it.

Column for May 3, 2007

The world has gone totally insane

Maybe it is just a sign of the times. Then again, many of these things have gone on for centuries. It still looks like our world has gone mad. I wonder, however, if anyone truly cares. The responses to travesties or tragedies show the madness of our world.

We have a woman running for President whose only claim to fame is that she was married to a morally corrupt President. We have a man running for President whose middle name is Hussein. We have an ambulance chasing lawyer from North Carolina running a second time for President. He was a Senator for less than one term before running the first time and had one of the worst attendance records in the Senate. The scary thing is that they are all Socialists and may actually win.

We have shooting rampages that are happening across our nation. Obviously, the one that got the most attention was the one in Blacksburg, Virginia. Just recently, there was one in Kansas City and earlier in the year, one in Utah. The reaction is understandably one of shock and outrage. The insane part is the cry for more gun control to "prevent" these issues from happening again. It was gun control that enabled these shootings and would not have prevented them. Just this week, teens in Onslow County stole an AR-15 rifle and brought it to school. By their very nature, criminals do not obey gun laws. Such laws only prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and others. Gun control is the problem, not the cure. But let us not allow the facts to stand in the way of numerous bills being filed in Congress and the state legislature calling for more restrictions on firearms. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? One notorious gun control advocate in the U.S. House of Representatives does not even know what is in her own bill.

We have towns snatching up tracts of land, claiming them as part of their town for the sole purpose of revenue generation. Freedom and property rights don't apply, nor do laws appertaining to such acquisition, apparently. Selma and Smithfield both have been snatching up nearby properties into the incorporated city limits without necessarily paying heed to legal issues.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been attacking the civil liberties of thousands of citizens. They have been targeting the Carolinas in particular lately. Selma is feeling the bite right now. Prayer is being attacked while prayer is the very reason the ACLU even has the right to exist. Were it not for praying people, this nation would have gone the way of the dodo a long time ago. Yet, they feel that they are being American by attacking Americans. For some stupid reason, we are supposed to feel good about the majority being forced to bow down to the vast minority.

There are people picketing Aero Contractors at the Johnston County Airport. Allegedly, Aero Contractors is being used as a CIA air taxi to shuttle prisoners for torturing. At least that is the story by the protesters. Aero Contractors is a transportation service, nothing more. They are not the group allegedly torturing prisoners of war (yes, prisoners of war). To pick on that company is like picketing a local taxi cab company for providing a ride to a rapist or murderer. The prisoners being transported are people who were trying to kill American troops, were caught in battle, were never on American soil, and do not have the benefit of Constitutional protections as a result.

States like New Hampshire, formerly a beacon of conservative life in a liberal cesspool like New England, are passing "civil union" laws, basically allowing homosexual couples to have the same rights as married, heterosexual couples. Sin has become a civil right. Granting civil unions but not calling it marriage is like going to the supermarket and buying ketchup instead of catsup. It is the same thing, just by a different name.

Wow, I was just getting started and I am already out of space for this week's column. I am reminded of a movie title, "It's a MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD World" we live in.

Column for April 26, 2007

Tell the ACLU to "Shove it!"

The American Civil Liberties Union. Now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. The organization is certainly not "American", nor does it stand for civil liberties. If anything, it exists to destroy such liberties and replace them with more governmental regulation and usurpation of freedom.

For those of you who did not read last week's "Selma News", there was a front page article on the ACLU wanting the Town of Selma to immediately cease opening the town council meetings with "sectarian prayer". I suppose they want one of three things; pray in the name of nobody in particular, have prayer represented by each religion possibly represented in this nation, or no prayer at all.

I find it absurd that denying a tradition and spiritual act that has been a foundation of this nation is somehow forbidden by the very documents of that foundation. That would be like someone proving from The Bible that Jesus forbade the worship of God. I know that some denominations do that very thing concerning spiritual gifts, but that is another topic for another day.

The ACLU is not about civil liberties. It is about money and power. The modus operandi of that organization is to sue towns, counties, states, and the federal government, to allegedly rectify some wrong. Basically, the ACLU has found a way to extort money out of government coffers, meaning us taxpayers, under the guise of representing a tiny fraction of the populace who are somehow being denied civil liberties by the rest of us enjoying and employing our own liberties. The ACLU then collects money for legal fees from local governments for waging their evil war on these same governments. Our tax dollars are paying for the erosion of our own civil liberties by a group claiming to protect them. In addition, the ACLU gets a lot of money from liberal, secularist, God hating groups of people.

To extrapolate an opening prayer at a local town or county government meeting into a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is ludicrous. First, a town or county (the ACLU has sued Forsyth County for this very thing) is not Congress. The amendment pertains to acts of Congress, not states, counties, or municipalities. Second, the original intent of the writers of that amendment and the entire Constitution is crystal clear for those willing to accept it. The "founding fathers" wrote more than just that one document. They wrote quite a bit in newspapers, essays, letters, and the like, as well.

Benjamin Franklin was arguably one of the more secular individuals in the group of founders. He signed the Declaration of Independence, signed the Constitution, and was a Governor of Pennsylvania. He wrote, "I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service." Does that sound like he wanted there to be no prayer before a meeting of Congress? Only a twisted, perverted view of First Amendment interpretation can lead to the belief that the amendment means exactly the opposite of what it says. We could have a long discussion about Supreme Court rulings and original intent regarding "separation of church and state". However, that will take more space than I have in my little column, so contact me if you want more information on that topic.

The ACLU claims that they received a complaint by an individual. I declare that this individual should be named publicly along with the date of the complaint, and the exact nature of said complaint. If an individual has a problem with how the town handles its affairs, the first place to turn is to the town for a redress of grievances rather than to some secularizing group that intends to relieve the vast majority of our rights. This catering to the small minority paradigm is pure stupidity. Quite honestly, anyone who believes in the ACLU's mission, tactics, and method of funding is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest at best.

It is my hope that the town council here in Selma will, as other towns and counties have done, stand and defend its rights and those of its citizens. There are plenty of resources and organizations that are willing to join this fight. Forsyth County has decided to fight this battle, and The Alliance Defense Fund has stepped up to the plate on their behalf. Some battles are just worth fighting, and this is one of them.

Column for April 19, 2007

A proclamation for the bond referendum

You may or may not see this one reported in the news. The Selma Town Council meeting last week got most of the attention by the media and potential new residents focused on the vote to annex five tracts of land into the town limits. That is appropriate, considering the volatile situation created by that very act.

Following the vote to annex, most of the crowd left the council chambers and did not stay for the remainder of the meeting. I did, since I already live within the town limits and am not personally being annexed. I personally want to find out all that my town is doing. Open meetings are one cornerstone of our republic.

One act by the town council that you may not know about is the passing of a resolution to support the upcoming bond referendum on May 8th. You may have read my previous column on that same topic, seen the billboards around the county, and heard about it in the media.

I don't know who paid for the billboards touting bond support, but I will be greatly unhappy if it was done with our own tax dollars. Our government has no business using such expense and propaganda for its own bond agenda. That should be left up to concerned citizens on both sides of the issue.

I was a bit dismayed that the proclamation to support the bond referenda was not read in open session in the town council meeting, so only those on the town council, in town government, and the media were given the content of the proclamation. I had to ask for a copy, and was graciously accommodated by Fran Davis, the Selma Town Clerk. Thank you, Ms. Davis. I am thankful for public access laws.

I did some rewriting of the proclamation, as I believe it should be written.

WHEREAS, the majority of the burden for paying taxes in Johnston County is unfairly borne by property owners, many of whom do not have children in public schools; and

WHEREAS, the school system already gets millions of dollars in financial support from the county, the state, and the federal government; and

WHEREAS, the school system population is growing as a direct result of the influx of illegal immigrants that are already given government benefits, and education not necessarily available to long term or native residents; and

WHEREAS, there are charter schools in this state that thrive with creative means of utilizing facilities for their academic institutions; and

WHEREAS, many of these same charter schools are able to finance new school construction without the benefit of the additional monies supplied to the public schools for school construction, which is the reason for the aforementioned school bond; and

WHEREAS, the public schools have a lower level of academic achievement today than any time in documented history of academics in this nation; and

WHEREAS, the very innovators of the concept of smaller class are the ones who are currently abandoning that concept as flawed, expensive, and non-productive; and

WHEREAS, the government has already indentured the taxpayers of this county, municipality, state, and nation with a high level of indebtedness far greater than at any time in history; and

WHEREAS, government construction and administration projects are notoriously inefficient and great wastes of taxpayer monies; and

WHEREAS, neither the Johnston County School System nor Johnston Community College have demonstrated sufficient efforts so as to ensure the utmost in stewardship and efficiency with existing taxpayer monies; and

WHEREAS, the taxpayers of this state have already been swindled by inefficient government initiatives such as "Smart Start" and "More at Four"; and

WHEREAS, private and home schools have, in general, been demonstrated to surpass the education quality of our public schools; and

WHEREAS, there is no freedom of choice as to where parents may send their children in the public school system, thereby creating competition in education thereby boosting academic performance; and

WHEREAS, recreational facilities are a nice thing to have for the county and municipalities but are not necessities thereof; and

WHEREAS, there are far more important things to spend taxpayer monies upon than recreation facilities such as infrastructure improvements;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Selma encourages the county's voters to defeat the education and recreation facilities bond referendum scheduled for May 8, 2007.

Yeah, like that would ever happen.

Engage brain before dialing phone

Here is a voice mail comment from someone who obviously didn't seem to get at all what I wrote in my latest LaPlante's Rants column. For some reason, it sounds like she thinks I wrote negatively regarding the use of the term "Blacks", when I actually wrote that it was disrespectful for the authors of the NC Senate bill and media articles to have used the spelling "blacks". I personally find it disrespectful to not capitalize a proper noun when referring to an entire group of people. This lady obviously did not read and comprehend prior to dialing.

Column for April 12, 2007

Should NC apologize for slavery?

Would you apologize for something you did not do? How many times does an institution have to make amends for previous wrongs? Is the answer just once or ad infinitum? When it comes to the issue of slavery and racial oppression, apparently the answer is ad infinitum. Fayetteville Democrat, Senator Tony Rand is a sponsor of 86 different bills in the Senate this session. The one that has garnered the most attention is S1557, a joint resolution to formally apologize for the institution of slavery by the State of North Carolina.

The bill says, "Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:The General Assembly issues its apology for the practice of slavery in North Carolina and expresses its profound contrition for the official acts that sanctioned and perpetuated the denial of basic human rights and dignity to fellow humans." In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with recognizing the past wrongs of a governmental organization. I do take issue with the contrition aspect in this bill, however. I find it to be more of a political pandering than anything contrite.

Unless my math is very wrong, the Civil War ended 142 years or so ago. The 13th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (1865 and 1870) rectified the previously acceptable practice of slavery, as originally incorporated into the 1787 document. During that war, 360,000 Union soldiers died to help with the cause of abolition.

Make no mistake, the war was not anywhere near totally about abolition. It is more about slavery than many Southerners preach and far less so than many Yankees teach. Having lived in both the North and the South, I have heard both versions of history. After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, abolition officially became a war goal. The proclamation itself freed nobody. The warfare to back it up freed millions.

Before you think that slavery was totally a racial issue, keep in mind that a good many slave owners were Black themselves. The Cherokee also owned many Black slaves. Many American Indians were sold into slavery and exported in the 1600's. Many Africans sold other Africans into slavery for importation to the North American continent.

I find it ironic that the main sponsors of a formal apology coming 150 years too late are Democrats, although the bill has passed the Senate with bi-partisan support. The Democrats are the ones who opposed abolition in the South and wanted to leave the topic alone in the North. The Republican Party began in the 1850's as an abolitionist party. The Democrats were the ones who supported Jim Crow laws. They are now the same party that tries to keep people in economic and social slavery, yet currently attract the very people to whom they are attempting to apologize.

Bringing up the issue of slavery today merely picks at a scab to reopen a sore wound. Sure, we should teach history, but teach it accurately. The good, the bad, and the ugly should all be taught as history for all to learn thereby. However, to dredge up the same topic to no real benefit is not a productive use of our time, our legislature, resources, or money.

I don't know about you, but I don't think that there are any people alive today that were under the bondage of slavery in this nation. Nor are there any people alive who perpetrated this gross injustice. Other than a "warm fuzzy to sooth the conscience", what does the apology do? Essentially, just waste time and money. The best apology is to encourage with social and economic freedom and to treat all with dignity, respect, and love.

Speaking of respect, in reading the Senate bill and most newspaper articles, slaves and their descendants are referred to as "blacks". It is not that this is a disrespectful term, but I noticed that not once did the bill's author or the media have sufficient respect to capitalize the word, since it refers to an entire race of people. I come from a French family, not a french family. Similarly, there should be enough respect for those to whom the bill's author believes an apology is due to at least capitalize the term "Blacks". Perhaps that is just my opinion, but I sure feel that it is accurate. For a free hour long monologue on this topic, contact me.

Column for April 5, 2007

When is enough, enough?

One battle cry during the American Revolutionary period was "No taxation without representation". Sometimes, I wonder if it is any better in America today than it was with no representation. All I have to do is to read the newspaper, the internet, or listen to news casts to just plain get annoyed. I sometimes feel almost numb to the constant assault upon the American taxpayer. I realize that the key is to be vigilant rather than to tune things out, but it sure isn't easy.

Just recently, we have seen proposals to annex property that is actually a form of taxation with promised future representation. There are bills before the U.S. Congress that fail to renew tax cuts that were only temporary. Here in North Carolina, there are proposals to continue in the tax raising mode. Our state representatives are also in the mode of increasing governmental control over the serfs of this state. For instance, did you know that there is a proposal to make you pay for and install two license plates on your automobile? There are all sorts of reasons for making this happen, none are sufficient to convince me of the need or justify the imposition and cost to the people who pay the bills in this state.

Does any thinking individual actually think that we are not taxed sufficiently in this state or nation to perform all facets of the purpose of government? Even at the county or town level? If we can find areas in which to actually cut spending at the town level, we can certainly find areas of waste, fraud, abuse, and unnecessary expenditure at each larger level of government. However, that is not sufficient for the insatiable appetite of government control.

One bill in particular, State Senate bill S1201, will put a 1% sales tax (though some call it a real estate transfer tax to soften the blow of its actual function) on people who sell their real estate. The idea is that the home seller will be responsible for coughing up 1% of the sales price of their property and handing it over to some bureaucrat. Of course, we all know that the government knows how to better spend your hard earned money than you do.

If that bill becomes law, you can kiss a good amount of home equity that you worked your tail off to build and call it your contribution...nay, your duty to serve your already bloated government. But this insidious bill does not stop there. Not only will this bill hurt you when you sell your home by taking away some of the money you would be putting towards your new home, it will do the same to hit you hard on your next car purchase.

The same bill would raise the sales tax on automobiles, more than doubling it. Yup, I can think of no better way than to make use of more of my money by giving it to some bloated bureaucracy. I mean, it is better used in the hands of a tremendously inefficient governmental operation than in paying down the debt of a new car loan, right?

Could the mindset that brought us this bill get any worse? Yes it could. The bill goes on to remove the deduction of the cost of the old car you want to trade in for your new car from the cost of your taxation. That means that not only are you going to pay double the tax on a new car, if this bill is passed, you are going to pay the tax on the entire retail of that same automobile, even though you are not paying the full price and are giving up your existing property in the deal.

The money grubbing attitude of government is enough to make one weary. How much more can we take of this? The paradigm that brought us the idea of constant taxing and spending is prolific in most all levels of government, but is certainly proportionate to the amount of taxpayers from which the money is forcibly extracted. The real sad thing about S1201 is that the tax hikes are to help replenish the highway trust fund, which was pillaged by the same state government, and that fund was never repaid, even when there was a huge surplus in revenue last year.

I used to be optimistic that we could stop or at least lessen the financial rape of the taxpayer, but I become less so as time goes by.

Column for March 29, 2007

Annexation deserves fair treatment by Council

Usually, I write my columns as much as three weeks in advance. When a topic hits me, I become a scribe. Sometimes, I wait until I see something local and timely. This time, I waited and was glad I did so.

The last Selma Town Council meeting had a public hearing regarding the town's plans for involuntary annexation. Many citizens came to the meeting to express their opinions either pro or con. There were no pro arguments to be had. What bothered me greatly was that the council placed an undue restriction on time allowed for commentary. This has not been done at previous meetings, and the time limit was not equally enforced on each speaker. Only the speakers deemed "thorny" to the time keeper seemed to get the three minute rule enforced.

I have differed with Tony Tetterton on other issues, but on this issue, I believe that he should have been heard in full. As a proxy for others, he could have offered a full presentation that fully outlined the problems with the report on the annexation project. Mr. Tetterton went to the trouble of preparing a full multi-media presentation on behalf of those who are being annexed. Quite frankly, if he went through this much effort and there was a full house of people all wanting to have their collective opinions heard, this would have been entirely appropriate.

There have been long winded presentations about energy savings, how electric rates are calculated, and for slide shows made about the town. I do not belittle those projects or the information. However, if the council can take the time for these presentations, it would seem that they could take the time to discuss an issue that would affect an entire subdivision full of residents, as well as other areas just outside the town. I found the time restriction and refusal to hear the presentation unjust and hypocritical. For the meaningful and impactful things such as involuntary annexation, there is no time, but for a presentation about where to have polling places, there was time to spare in the same meeting. The simple request for the town to actually choose a polling location in a timely fashion could have been accomplished in three sentences. Instead, it took the time that a presentation from a group of potentially forcibly added citizens could have taken.

When an entire group of citizens offer to relinquish their three minutes of their rightful time to a proxy such as Mr. Tetterton so that he can speak collectively for them, I find it arrogant to deny that request. Furthermore, when there is an entire page of problems enumerated by the group about the report upon which the decision to annex will be made, then it is only prudent to listen.

I am already on record as opposing involuntary annexation except in specific cases, as I wrote a month ago in this very column. I am very much for private property rights. Unless someone is getting all the benefits of being a resident of the town such as the roads, street lighting, water, sewer, fire protection, ISO insurance ratings, and local development but not paying the supporting taxation whereas a neighbor does, then there is an inequity. When there is a whole group not benefiting from all of these things except paying the fire district tax, I believe that they have the right to stay outside the town. The fiat of five people should not decide the taxation fate of a large number of private homes.

If the town council will not allow the property owners their time to be heard in full, I will offer the time on my own internet talk show which is heard each week. More information can be found on troylaplante.com. A letter to the editor that was in last week's paper is another way of communicating the issue. Either way, the information should be heard by the town for consideration.

In the end, if there are problems and errors in the annexation report, then they need to be seriously addressed by the council and the town attorney. Private property rights need to be taken into account. In addition, those potentially affected need to be treated fairly, equally, and with respect.

Column for March 22, 2007

Fighting eminent domain abuse

Usually, I strongly encourage government jobs to be done as cheaply and efficiently as possible. I believe that the government has the responsibility to be efficient and accountable with the tax payer funds they take and use from the citizenry. Just recently, however, I was reading news accounts that make me want the government to actually spend more money, a lot more money than originally planned. The Clayton bypass road project just got a few million dollars more expensive, and I am actually glad to see it.

It is a heinous thing when the government takes money from taxpayers unjustly and spends it with flagrant disregard for monetary, ethical, or legal sensibility. It is just as bad, perhaps even worse, when the government makes an obvious attempt to steal from a single citizen or family.

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Occasionally, the federal government, states, and municipalities will abuse their authority in taking private property.

Sometimes the execution of eminent domain is for public use. Other times it is solely for increasing tax base, such as in the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut decision. That was one horrific and unjust decision. Basically, that decision stated that a municipal government may condemn a property and/or take it by eminent domain powers, then turn that property over to private developers. The developers would in turn make that property more valuable with construction and use that would produce more tax revenue. Either way, it is the legal theft of personal property to give to other private citizens to generate increased tax revenue. That is just immoral and does not serve the public good. Sure, more tax revenue is better for the rest of the tax payers, but the infringement of personal property rights is not a good and just thing.

Locally, we saw eminent domain abuse by the State of North Carolina. That state attempted to shaft property owners by not paying the fair value of the property being taken for the US 70 Clayton bypass. Donald and Edna Williamson are a couple that were getting hosed by the State of North Carolina and were not being paid the fair value for their property. Not only did the State condemn their property and then grossly undervalue it, their justification for the undervaluation was based upon a situation they themselves created for the property years ago when they took some of that farm for eminent domain use.

The first eminent domain property taken to build a highway left the remaining property with no main highway access, only service road access. Allegedly, that made the property less valuable. That is not a situation created by the couple who owned the property. It was solely a creation of the state. Now the state wants more of their property to do more highway construction. The state has undervalued the property, based upon the fact that they created a lack of access to the property previously. The polite way of saying it would be that it is ethically challenged behavior.

The couple put up a fight, had a private appraisal of their land, and won in court. To attempt to shaft the property owner while taking away their land "without just compensation" is disgraceful. I am glad to see that they won their case and will get their true, just compensation for their loss.

It should not have to come to a couple putting up a legal fight, spending money on private appraisers, and on legal fees. However, if that is what it takes to fight back against tyranny, then it must be done.

When you go to the polls and vote (and we have votes coming up in May and November), vote for issues and people who will protect your rights, not infringe upon them. If you are facing unjust eminent domain or even forced annexation, stand up and fight for what is right. We are the people. Supposedly, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is our domain. We must be vigilant to hold said government accountable to be ethical and to protect the rights of us, the people.

Column for March 15, 2007

Protect the 2nd Amendment

For those of you who follow my column and/or blog, you know that I am a huge advocate for liberty. I don't care who you are, as long as you are on American soil and are here legally, I believe that you are blessed with a great amount of freedom. The key in this nation is to preserve those freedoms. Even if we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", we still must be vigilant about preservation of those rights.

If the Declaration of Independence is correct and these rights are given by God, not man, then man must not infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens. Unfortunately, history is replete with despots, dictators, and freedom haters. Men love to exert control over other men. What amazes me is that we actually elect people who would abridge our civil liberties.

I was only a tot when "Mr. Conservative", Barry Goldwater was serving in the U.S. Senate. Though interested in politics and civics, I was not as aware of the national political climate as I am now, as a middle aged man. Thus, I was not as aware of Goldwater's politics as I am now. I have read his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" and seen documentaries about his life. One thing that I loved about Goldwater was his unwavering dedication to the principles of liberty. There are a few areas in which we disagree, namely abortion and gay rights. Those areas, not being enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and being public situational ethics issues, are not a matter of liberty to me.

One issue that is a sore subject with me is the Second Amendment debate. For years, I have seen the debate of the right to keep and bear arms rage on. There are those who would attempt to interpret the text of the simple amendment to mean that only the military should have weapons, not the public. Of course one has to bend the meaning and read into the text in order to arrive at that conclusion. It is the same way with the right to have an abortion. It is not in the Constitution and one has to make that up.

Others believe just what the amendment says, meaning the words "shall not be infringed" means just that. I would simply say, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?" James Madison thought it so important that he originally wanted to have the text inserted into the main body of the new constitution rather than be an amendment added as part of the "Bill of Rights". I am a firearms enthusiast and fully support the Second Amendment.

There is currently proposed in Congress H.R. 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007". Real so called "assault weapons" have been highly regulated and generally illegal for the average citizen to own since the 1930's. It is sheer ignorance, fear, and efforts to control that lead to gun bans. I have handled many of the guns on the list that some in Congress want to ban. The proposed ban is not to protect law enforcement, it is control law abiding citizens. Criminals do not abide by the law, which is the definition of a criminal.

I am thankful that the previous Congress allowed the original "assault weapons ban" to expire without renewal. Now, with a Democrat controlled Congress, we are again seeing attempts to infringe upon YOUR rights. My advice is to get all the guns you can now before a Democrat is elected President and signs a bill that would infringe upon your rights, offend people like Barry Goldwater, and make me want to get on a rooftop with a so called assault weapon. [edited at request of paper's editor to read "makes me fully comprehend why the writers of the Constitution felt that the citizenry should be armed in the first place."

The infringement of gun rights, however, is not limited just to our federal government. I have seen such infringement happen by our own Johnston County and state governments. With action and vigilance, perhaps liberty will be restored and preserved.

Please don't form opinions about issues such as this out of emotion, ignorance, or irrational fear. Get educated. If you support the 2nd Amendment, join a group like Gun Owners of America and contact your elected representatives. Get involved and preserve freedom.

Column for March 8, 2007

Corporate welfare programs are bad policy

Well, it figures. I rarely miss being a spectator at a Town Council meeting in Selma. Each of the few times I have, I miss interesting developments in the town’s government. The last meeting, I missed the agreement to lease the Harrison school property to a charter school and the plan for economic development incentives here in town. I think the charter school plan is an innovative use of otherwise unused property. The proposed economic development zone and incentives, however, I am not so keen about.

I have never been a fan of corporate welfare programs. Here in North Carolina, we have seen our share of them. Dell, Google, FedEx, Honda, and other industries have been lured to the state with multi million dollar incentive packages at taxpayer expense. Here in Johnston County, we have seen our share, as well.

From what I have read in the media, the Selma Town Council and Town Manager seem to be supporting the recent plan for local town to offer tax rebates to encourage business development. First, if we just plain lowered taxes across the board, business would be encouraged. The high tax rates we already pay are a disincentive for development. Government regulation adds to the high costs of doing business, as well. Here in Selma, we already have an increased property tax rate plus sales tax, income tax, FICA, and federal taxes. If that burden was lessened, we would not have such a hard time with getting businesses started and continuing. Present businesses would have more to invest in their companies and ordinary people may be able to start their own businesses.

The current plan is to rebate people who build and improve property along a specific, generally undevelopable stretch of road in Selma, the differential in rate of the property tax paid for five years. I understand the concept and the reasons behind the tax rebates. However, I think that the five year plan is a bit of over kill and akin to the deals that Dell and others have gotten. I realize that after five years, a business will have their normal tax rate and may (not a definite, since businesses come and go) pay full freight then.

The area targeted in Selma is not ripe for development primarily because of what is there. Exit 98 is one of the worst exits for access and egress on the interstate. No business will solve that challenge to development. It is not right off Highway 70, a major throughway like at exit 97. There is a major railroad crossing there, a train station, the town electrical department, and a propane farm. A restaurant or bank would just be "out of the way and out of sorts" from the already settled area and would not really conform to either the surrounding area or usage thereof. That is why I believe that the stretch in question is certainly not ripe for development. It really has less to do with encouraging building there and more to do with the uselessness of the terrain. I believe that the reality is that no incentives would really make that area attractive to development.

The same proposal is going across Johnston County. I am all for encouraging business. However, corporate welfare programs at taxpayer expense, no matter how large or small, are inherently unfair to all other taxpayers. Sure, the local proposals are relatively small. But do we just join the bandwagon of the practice of corporate welfare for development or do we stand on principle? To compare something recent in the news, if Jim Black had just a little bit of corruption while in office rather than a heap big amount, would it have been acceptable or fair? Not to be cliché, but I believe that a little leaven will leaven the whole lump.

Don’t send me hate mail claiming that I don’t understand business and am not for developing our area, or am a regressive. Sure, I can handle that, no problem. But, better than your letters, emails, or phone calls would be your commentary at the public hearing that will be held on the subject. Show up and let your voice be heard where it counts.

Column for March 1, 2007

Flipping the switch on "Old Sparky"

I highly value human life. I can say for a certainty that God values life, as well. That is why he put the ultimate price on the taking of innocent life. He is the one who invented the death penalty, not man. God is not schizophrenic, so I figure that he didn't change his mind on the topic of murder and the punishment thereof.

The State of North Carolina is heatedly debating the death penalty. Death penalty opponents claim that the proposed moratorium on executions is not an attempt to thwart the existence of the death penalty in this state. I don't buy it at all. There is an agenda at work here.

Medical boards have decided that it is unethical for a doctor to comply with the law and have a physician participate in lethal injection executions. It was a stupid requirement in the law to begin with. Let's change the law. Either that or allow the judicial process to strike down that provision. That won't happen, though, since the liberal judiciary only takes activist stands on liberal issues, not conservative. Personally, I hate judicial activism with a passion. I do believe that it can cut both ways, though. It just doesn't.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

What part of both then New and Old Testament is so hard to comprehend in this?

Not that I relish the thought of taking someone's life or seeing someone "step into eternity" and into Hell, but I just believe what those verses say. I believe it to the point that I would be willing to perform the execution myself. I have no problem flipping the switch on "Old Sparky", pulling the trigger, or jabbing someone with a needle if that is the sentence. I do not say that I will not have a few feelings of my own to sort out afterwards, but I do believe it to be righteous and therefore believe it to be just and right.

I just wish that our elected officials had the guts to have the same resolve. I am tired of hearing about the moratorium, protesters, and from whiners. I have seen several articles and watched news reports in the local media about the death penalty, a moratorium on executions, and power plays to cease the use of the death penalty indefinitely.

In our state legislature, committee recommended legislation that would let convicts appeal their death sentences if they can allege that the sentences were based on racial discrimination. How in the world is the sentence based upon race? If someone committed murder, then they get whacked themselves. Simple. It does not matter about the race of the convict. The only fact that should matter is "has he/she been found guilty of murder?" If the answer is "yes", then it is time to whack a convict.

Our Lieutenant Governor, Beverly Perdue has publicly stated that the state should impose a moratorium on executions until some esoteric, supposedly "constitutional" questions about how the state carries out the death penalty are resolved. What constitutional questions? How is something as easy as lethal injection cruel and unusual for punishment? Personally, I believe it to be too easy a form of execution. The victim of the murder they committed probably died a far more violent or painful death. It is painless and non violent. The end result is the same, but the convict gets off light.

To our elected representatives and all opponents of the death penalty, grow a spine, let government be a terror to evil, bear not the sword in vain, be the minister of God, and execute wrath upon him that does evil.