Column for Feb. 16, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for Feb. 9, 2012

When considering the government expenditure of public money, we all have to ask, “To what end?”  Not everything that is a nice idea is necessarily a good idea, nor is it in the public best interest.  Furthermore, government has to take into account the impact on area residents when entering into contracts.  There are several cases in point in the news.

There have been and will be meetings in the Town of Selma at which residents can express their concerns to the town leadership.  One big concern has been the high cost of utilities in town.  Selma, like other towns, is a public power community, meaning that the town owns the electrical system and is contracted to purchase energy and then retails it to its citizenry.  I have written many times about this.  Basically, this amounts to another tax upon the town residents.  Since we pay significantly higher rates than customers who deal with Progress Energy directly, any dollar amount above what would be charged if we bought the electricity ourselves from the power company should be considered taxation, not merely utility costs.

What I found unacceptable was the town’s attitude of “Too bad, we have a contract to do business this way, so you have to live with the high costs.  Try cutting back on your electricity use.”  No, the town brought this burden upon us by a poor contract for services, so the town, if not already doing so, should be looking at being released from that contract.  I never hear that as a possibility from anyone.  Also, any town should never obligate itself and its citizens for numerous decades as has been done with many local communities.

I looked with interest at an article about the Town of Selma moving forward with building a train viewing platform.  I still laugh at this one.  We may be a railroad-centric town, but this is ridiculous.  I don’t care if the town is seeking funding from some grant.  If the grant comes from any governmental source, it is tax money.  If it is from a private institution, that is another thing.  Either way, the town has to pay $2500 just to have a company process the grant application.  Then it is recommended that the town commit to at least a $5000 sum of public tax dollars to help attract the grant.  So the town wants to spend at least $7500 to hope to get a $75,000 platform.

I am making an offer right now to the Town of Selma.  I will gladly save them all of the money mentioned, go to Lowe’s or Big Lots and buy a couple of park style benches out of my own pocket.  I won’t even ask to have my name on a plaque attached to them.  We don’t need a train watching platform in town.  We already have a nice train station with a sizable concrete pad.  People already come here with lawn chairs and sometimes even radios to hear the train radio traffic.  When the come, however, they come with their own coolers, drinks, and lunches.  I doubt that they purchase much, if anything, in town.

Again, I ask, “To what end?”  If the desired end is to attract more people to town, will we ever attract sufficient people to little old Selma to watch trains to justify the public expenditure of $75,000?  That is doubtful, regardless of from where that money comes.  How about the $7500 that the town will be staking for the project?  I doubt highly we will make that back in tax revenue, ever.  How about just the $2500 the town will spend for someone to process a grant application to pursue the money?  Yeah, right.  I doubt even that would be recovered.

People who come here to watch trains are not going to be interested in purchasing antiques.  And if they do venture into town to find a restaurant, their choices will be limited.  Creech’s Drug can’t sell enough homemade orange-ade to gain sufficient sales tax to cover the town’s expenses on this project.  Just because it is a nice idea, it doesn’t mean that the town should spend money on it.

I like the Selma Development Partnership’s idea of having a town museum as one example of how to do a project without tax dollars involved.  Granted, the small building may end up falling off the property tax rolls now that it is owned by a non-profit group, but at least we are not spending tax dollars.  It is ironic that one of the smallest business buildings in town will be the Selma museum.  Basically it can showcase a jar of Vick’s Vaporub and a model train and that about covers the town.  At least my tax dollars won’t be paying for it, though I will be willing to buy the jar of Vaporub at Creech’s Drugstore to donate to the museum.

Column for Feb. 2, 2012

This political scene just got a little more interesting.  I am not talking about the national campaign scene, either.  There will be several changes that I look forward to seeing play out.  Probably the biggest news is that North Carolina Governor, Beverly Perdue has decided not to run for re-election.  It was actually a bit surprising to me, though I did not really expect her to win if she ran again, anyway.  Apparently, neither did she.  Wish low polling numbers, droves of voters expected to vote against liberal candidates, low funding for a campaign, and a strong opponent for the next election, I guess it was the smart thing to do.  


People have been lining up to announce that they want to seek the governor’s position.  There is already a list of candidates that have either formally announced, announced that they will announce, or there is strong speculation that they will run.  Among them are Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton and hugely liberal/socialist State Representative Bill Faison from Berkley East, meaning Chapel Hill.  

Other possible candidates are former State Treasurer Richard Moore, U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre, Congressman Heath Shuler (from the western part of the state), and Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx.  Then there is speculation that our old friend, Bob “Who are you” Etheridge may seek the governor’s seat.  If Old Bob runs, that will make for some interesting moments in sports in our family.  My wife’s family literally were Etheridge’s neighbors and think that he was the most honest and helpful statesmen to come along in ages.  I, on the other hand, found him to be your typical, greasy, snake oil salesman of a politician who has no idea what the US Constitution says.


With people like Bev Perdue and Congressman Brad Miller deciding not to seek re-election, I wonder if there was pressure from The White House to step down so as to help Barack Obama in a key battleground state come election season.  I realize that Miller, like Etheridge, is now in David Price’s district with the redrawn election districts, so that may have weighed heavily in his decision.  Either way, I would like to take this opportunity to formally announce that I am NOT seeking the office of Governor of the State of North Carolina at this time.


Another noteworthy decision was that of Wake County School Board member John Tedesco to run for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.  I have long supported Tedesco’s stance on local schools and abolishing the so-called diversity policy in Wake County.  He will have my vote.  I was disgusted to see some of the horrible comments that his critics had left on the internet on news stories from the local TV stations about his intent to run.  Keep in mind that these are the sorts of people who call conservatives intolerant bigots.

• “Haha he is such a moron [sic]”
• “I fully intend to support whoever runs against him. He's the WORSE.[sic]”
• “He's a true idiot and can't even put together a coherent sentence.”
• “This is NO good for the state and it is really an insult that someone with so little experience with our state and the educational system in general could even be considered to run for this position! I'm disgusted!![sic]”

I find that last one very amusing considering that Bob Etheridge used to be Superintendent of Public Instruction at one time with no experience in the field of education.  At least John Tedesco has served as a member of the board of the largest school district in the state.

I decided to weigh in on this Tedesco discussion myself and left the following commentary.  “I think that all the previous commentators on this thread are pretty hateful and ignorant.  I will vote for him.  I love his stance for Wake County Schools in getting rid of the useless, (not really) progressive, politically correct diversity policy.  It was only common sense to let children go to a local school.  Any ignorant fool who thought the policy that was in place prior to John Tedesco was actually proper or effective should turn in their voter registration card and stay home.”  I have no idea what comments may have been made after I gave my opinion on that public forum, but then again, I don’t really care.

Column for Jan. 26, 2012

Before I start ranting, I wanted to rave a bit.  I want to brag on my son, John, who took first place in the Pack 95 Cub Scout annual Pinewood Derby this past weekend.  He put a lot of thought and effort into his car, as did all the boys who competed.  I am the Bear Den leader, and all of “my boys” did well.  I am very proud of the sportsmanship, creativity, and effort that went into each car.  I can honestly say that I enjoy Pinewood Derby more as an adult than I ever did when I was a scout.  It is amazing how much I get out of Cub Scouts as a parent and leader, as well as how much my boy gets out of scouting when he has an active, supporting parent to work with him.   If you have a son in elementary school that would like to learn more about Cub Scouts, feel free to contact me.  Now, in the words of M.C. Hammer, “It’s column time!” or something like that.

I hate toll roads.  Whenever I drive through the northeast corridor or some parts of Florida, I end up paying a lot of money in tolls.  Some states hit motorists at a high rate, others just nickel and dime you.  A trip to New England costs over $20 in tolls, one way.  My last trip to Miami was over $10.  Now we have a toll road in the Triangle area.  I was just reading about North Carolina wanting to have tolls on I-95.  This is nothing new and the topic comes up every once in a while.  Now that the ice has been cracked in getting an initial toll road, I knew that it would be just a matter of time until the I-95 toll idea actually took a stronghold.  

The state Department of Transportation has just issued a report suggesting that I-95 be widened significantly, some bridges be raised, and some bridges replaced.  I understand road maintenance, but widening I-95, putting up toll plazas, and spending $4.4 billion?  Johnston County has the oldest stretch of the interstate, so it also has some of the oldest and lowest bridges.  I cringed when I saw that rather than replacing bridges over the past few years, the DOT spent millions of dollars just raising the height of some bridges by a mere eighteen inches.  Why not spend the extra money, do it right, and replace the bridges rather than having to come back later and replace them, anyway?  That was a waste of taxpayer money, but it would not have given the DOT as much job security with some expensive busy work now, and some guaranteed work later.

We pay a high tax rate as it is, but a lot of money is seemingly squandered on busy work projects.  I just pulled up an article I saved from last September when the DOT was going to hold public hearings on proposed road “improvements” on Highway 70.  These so-called improvements included median closures at key intersections that will inconvenience motorists and are totally unnecessary.  It was bad enough that the DOT closed the median crossover on Highway 70 at Oak Street in Selma.  I used that crossover almost every time I drove home, but now I waste more gas and time going further down the road because some pinhead who has to justify his existence on the state payroll wants to improve a roadway at great taxpayer expense.

I used to live near where the Booker Dairy Road extension was going to cross Wilson’s Mills Road in Smithfield.  That road now runs right next to where my driveway was.  Now that the roadway is finished, I still fail to comprehend its great necessity or benefit over its cost and inconvenience with eminent domain and development processes.  Furthermore, like a lot of bypassing roadways, some local businesses will suffer.  

I have a friend in Shallotte, North Carolina whose business is suffering from a similar road “improvement”.  About every business trip to Shallotte, I stop by his restaurant for some of the best chicken wings known to mankind.  His restaurant business has dropped off considerably since a new roadway was built, bypassing a mile or two of roadway.  The road was not so busy as to be burdensome in terms of traffic.  The local residents, mayor, and town council are all baffled as to the need for the project to this day.

Even worse, these two bypassing projects were partially paid for with the so-called “stimulus package” federal spending.  The boondoggle allegedly meant to stimulate business actually has helped kill business.  Even worse still is that the DOT wants to nail us for even more money to pay for interstate improvements via toll roads all over after they continuously squander our tax money on road improvements that are unnecessary and inconvenience the very ones paying for it.  We already pay taxes, and now it looks like we are going to be taxed a second time to drive on the roads for which our tax dollars pay.

Column for Jan. 19, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for 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 Jan. 5, 2012

I have a rather libertarian bent in my views and I make no apologies for that.  This is not to say that I am a member of the Libertarian Party, a political party.  It means that I preach liberty as a way of life.  This has been my guiding philosophy in my views in government, politics, civil affairs, and even in church life.

When I was a member of the Planning Board in the Town of Selma, I voted with liberty in mind.  I believe in private property rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.  With that in mind, there is a place in society for rules and regulations on property use and business, but a limited one, in my opinion.

I realize that my views are about to sound like fingernails on a chalkboard to legalistic church folks, especially here in The Bible Belt, but I really don’t care.  My views are theologically sound and I am at perfect peace with what I am about to say.

Back when Johnston County was debating about whether to allow liquor by the drink, I heard some preachers hammering against the evils of alcohol.  It is not the alcohol that is the problem, it is the people who abuse it.  Alcohol consumption is not a sin, drunkenness is the sin mentioned in Holy Writ.  I believe in Christian liberty, and since I doubt Jesus turned water into Welch’s grape juice as his first recorded miracle, I don’t want to hear some legalistic whining about it.

I take the same view on gambling.  I had no problem with North Carolina instituting a lottery.  I lived in states that had lotteries before.  Our country has a history of colonial and state lotteries.  What I had a big problem with was the way in which North Carolina passed its lottery bill.  It was sneaky, underhanded, and unethical, but that is another discussion for another day.

When I was in Florida recently, I took note of how many internet sweepstakes cafes there were.  In the city of Jacksonville, they were all over.  When visiting my cousin, she took us to one and my wife and I both spent $20 each.  After depleting my online credits playing video slot machines, I recouped all but $3 or so of the cash staked.  My lovely bride actually won $66 or so, for a net profit of $46.  My cousin and her boyfriend did not fare as well.

The Town of Selma has decided to delay action on a petitioned request to open an internet gaming cafe.  The whole idea was to put off the decision on allowing the business or not until the state clarifies a ban on the businesses.  This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy, on both the part of the town and the state.

The town wants to increase business but has declined to allow a tattoo parlor and delayed a decision on an internet gaming business within the past year or so.  Personally, I don’t plan on allowing myself to be stabbed with a needle and ink, nor do I plan on sitting in front of a computer terminal playing video slot machines or Texas Hold ‘em poker.  However, a town cannot constantly cede their decision taking authority to the state, nor frown upon every legitimate, legal business that some may find a tad unsavory.  I hate tobacco products, but I defend wholeheartedly the right of JR’s Outlet to sell all the cigarettes they can to interstate travelers and locals alike.

Every once in a great while, I will buy a Powerball ticket.  I don’t do it often, but when I was in Florida for the aforementioned trip and the jackpot was over $200 million, I did buy five tickets.  I won $15 and am still waiting for the State of Florida to process my claim and send me a check.  

I don’t drink a lot, but I do like the occasional mudslide or Samuel Adams draft beer with my dinner.  At least we have decent quality restaurants in Johnston County and not just McDonald’s, country buffets, or barbecue restaurants because we chose to allow liquor by the drink and attract better quality restaurants.  I am sure that also helps with sales tax revenues.

I am not a big gambler, but if I want to put a few dollars in a slot machine or play a few video games, that is totally my business and my freedom.  I was recently in two casinos, one aboard a cruise ship and one in the Bahamas.  I spent nothing at the casinos.  If I wanted to, I could have.  That is my choice, and my freedom either way.  There is an internet gaming establishment across the walkway from the church my family attends each week.  If I want to walk over after Sunday service and play video poker, that is my choice.  I don’t do so, but I would have no problem with my conscience even if I did.

I would rather err on the side of liberty than tyranny when it comes to what some consider vices.  That is the freedom we have in this country, and we should not hesitate to encourage it rather than defer or decline it.

Column for Dec. 29, 2011

About a month ago, I wrote about gun rights and the Town of Smithfield. Their police chief, Michael Scott, seemed to be very much in favor of keeping gun bans in place in the town park system. To me, this is just another example of a freedom hating, constitutionally illegal action and attitude. I wanted to compare that attitude and how the Smithfield Police Department handles media relations to that of another law enforcement officer.

Spartanburg County, South Carolina is where my brother lived before he passed away two years ago. Most of his children still live in that area. At one time I had considered pursuing a job opportunity there to be closer to my family, but recently I found a news story that would have made me glad to be in Spartanburg County. Their county sheriff has a real grasp of reality.

When asked why I often carry a pistol, my answer is simply, “Because cops are too heavy to carry around.” Police can not be everywhere at all times. The old saying holds true. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I have a t-shirt in my closet that has a graphic of a Smith and Wesson firing a shot, blood spattering, and the caption, “I don’t dial 9-1-1”. Sure, I have called 9-1-1 on several occasions, including for the removal of a drunken Mexican on my doorstep a few years ago. But in life and death situations, sometimes you can not wait for the police.

When a woman was sexually assaulted by a repeat offender in his county, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright gave a spectacular news conference. He correctly referred to the offender as an animal. He criticized the justice system as being dysfunctional. He said that “our form of justice is not making it. Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it...I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don’t get Mace. Get a firearm.” He also said, "Gun control is when you can get your barrel back on the target quick.” If Chuck Wright ran for sheriff here in Johnston County, I would vote for him instantly.

Compare that to Smithfield Police Chief Michael Scott, who said that the updated rules adopted by Smithfield (pursuant to a new state law that allows concealed weapon permit holders such as myself to carry in parks) are designed to keep as much of the original ban in place while complying with the new law. Though municipalities are prohibited from outright banning carrying in parks, there is an exception for “recreational facilities” like playgrounds, swimming pools, and ballfields. Smithfield is taking the approach of having as much government control over law abiding citizens as legally possible.

The other thing about media relations and the Smithfield Police Department that cheesed me off was how they handled the fight over their budget. From what I have read, the Smithfield Town Council set a budget for their police department. The budget has less money for fuel for police cars than the police staff wanted. When the department requested to be able to transfer about $30,000 from other areas of their budget such as for office supplies to the fuel budget, the request was denied.

I have to admit that I don’t understand why funds within the department budget can not be fungible, considering that the overall dollar amount would not change. However, that was the decision by their town council. That should end the debate right there. Elected officials did what they felt was correct, even if I find it incorrigible and inappropriate.

What did I hear as a news story shortly thereafter on a Raleigh radio station? The Smithfield Police Department was warning that without the requested fuel funding, they would not be investigating misdemeanor crimes, only felonious ones; and that they most likely would not respond to every call for service. Obviously that came from someone inside the department attempting to wage a war of public opinion by using the media. No names were given as a source and no direct quotes were given. Granted, the police department can not control how something is reported, but I found the whole media outreach to be whiny, childish, and insubordinate.

When I compare the courage by Sheriff Chuck Wright in South Carolina to go against the grain of convention during a press conference, the call for freedom, and personal responsibility in the midst of reality, and compare that to the whiny, controlling paradigm that I see coming from law enforcement in Smithfield, I am disgusted.

Column for Dec. 22, 2011

I can’t believe the piece of junk mail I got today. I get plenty of solicitations for credit cards, usually more than one a day. I get junk mail from my mortgage company, my life insurance company, travel agencies, car dealers, lawyers, and the list goes on. Today I got one that insulted my sensibilities.

My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.

Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.

For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.

In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.

The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.

When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.

What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.

Column for Dec. 15, 2011

Recently my wife and I went to an American Heritage Girls ceremony for our niece. We had never heard of that organization prior to being at the meeting, so I did a little research. My first source online is usually Wikipedia, since from there I can usually find links to other sources. It said, “Christian Scouting organization founded in 1995 by...parents...who were unhappy that the Girl Scouts accepted lesbians as troop leaders, allowed girls to substitute another word more applicable to their belief for "God" in the promise, and allegedly banned prayer at meetings.” I found no local area troops, however.

This was particularly disturbing since I am involved in Cub Scouts with our oldest boy, have a two year old who may get involved in scouting, and we have another baby on the way and if it was a girl, we would have encouraged her to get into scouting, as well.

Shortly thereafter, I found a news article that had just been published and Tweeted (put on my Twitter feed) “I am done buying cookies, if our baby is a girl, she won't be allowed to join. "Girl Scouts Of USA Says It Will Accept Transgender Youth"”. I mean that. We have bought our last Girl Scout Cookie. The Girl Scouts have abandoned their core values and I will not contribute financially to their existence. (We have since found out that we are having another boy, so the Girl Scout thing is out for now, anyway.)

After my Tweet, I was accosted by a person claiming to be “transgender woman...atheist bordering on anti-theist” and an activist. He was obviously scouring the internet, looking for someone with whom to be offended and wanted to pick a fight. I was chastised repeatedly in increments of 140 characters or less on how I just don’t understand transgender people, how I am a religious bigot, how being transgender is not a choice, and that I must think that someone like him is outside the norm and therefore sinful or evil, and that that is ridiculous. I was called a hate filled religious bigot and, well...the final end of the digestive tract.

Since I have opinions and am willing to put them out there for public consumption, I tend to attract a lot of hate mail, whether from column readers or internet readers. I lamented the departure of the Girl Scouts from their core values, so I must be some Bible Belt, Bible thumping religious fanatic, right? Well, I had not even gotten into the religious implications before I was accused of using religion to pick on people for being transgender. Just as a matter of ontological makeup, I was lamenting the decisions by the Girl Scouts.

Personally, I find transgender people to be whiny, emotional individuals who can't accept reality and are looking for attention. They demand that the world accept their deviant behavior as normal, and claim that everyone else is the problem for their lack of acceptance. So far I have only run across Chaz Bono wannabes who can’t accept the fact that they either have XX or XY chromosomes and blame either nature or God for some colossal, cosmic mistake of trapping them inside the body of a sex with which they can not internally identify. Instead of being mature about it and accepting the hand they were dealt with in life, these people basically want to garner negative attention, giving themselves “victim” status. That seems to be a miserable existence to me.

I was told that people like I just described are not malevolent but rather just ordinary people feeling their way through life. No, they are deviants from societal norms screaming for acceptance. I have compassion for them, I truly do. I also have no problem letting them know the error and sinful nature of their ways. I have been praying for this “man” and will continue to do so.

I truly don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own homes, whether it be opining and dressing as the opposite sex or the practice of homosexuality. I will treat people I meet with respect even if I strongly disagree with their lifestyle choices. I don’t debase those in my family or circle of friends who are homosexuals. At least they are honest about who they are and for the most part, realize that they are not the majority of society. Of course there are those who are more rabid about their ways, even flaunting them in the face of society.

I am sure that some transgender people are very nice folks who just want to get along in life. I have not run across any in all of my dealings thus far, though. I have mostly run across whiny deviants who scream for me to accept their decisions about life. Thankfully I have the freedom, nay the responsibility, to decline either my acceptance or support of such lifestyles and influence upon my children and society. If my wife and I ever have a little girl, I might just have to help found a local American Heritage Girls troop.

Column for Dec. 8, 2011

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Recently, I got my concealed carry weapons permit renewed here in Johnston County. I have held such a permit for over a decade. That means that I had to take a class, prove that I am proficient in the use of a handgun, pass a criminal and mental health background check, and give my fingerprints for the state to have on file. A class costs time and money, gun range time costs money, ammunition costs money, and the application and renewal fees cost time and money every five years. I also hold a federal firearms curio and relic collector’s license. That means that I also got a thorough background check by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Notice the text of the Second Amendment. There are no qualifiers on that statement. Is simply says that my right shall not be infringed. Unfortunately, many such qualifications have been placed on that right. I have to obtain and carry a permit for carrying firearms. I have to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun, and submit to a background check if I want to purchase a firearm. I am prohibited from carrying firearms through certain states. I am prohibited from carrying firearms in certain places.

There are several debates going on right now about compliance with a new state law that prohibits municipalities from restrictions on where one can carry a weapon such as in parks but allows exceptions for “recreational facilities”. Of course freedom hating gun control nuts will attempt to make those exceptions as broad as possible.

Close to home, Smithfield is still banning the carrying of weapons at the aquatics center and at certain parks. They want to keep as much of the ban in place as legally possible. The police chief in Smithfield seems to be in support of this, based upon his quotes on the subject. Then again, that is not surprising considering how whiny his department has been about their most recent budget and how they handled it, but that is another column for another day.

In Garner, the same battle is being waged. State level gun rights groups have gotten involved there in the fight there, as well as in Smithfield. Grass Roots North Carolina is a great gun rights organization, and while typing this, I am reminded to renew my membership with them.

There are a few exceptions to the control freak behavior. Down Highway 70 is the town of Havelock. Though the town’s athletic director proposed maintaining restrictions like Garner and Smithfield, two of their town council members are strongly opposed to the idea of maintaining any such gun restrictions. One councilman, George Liner, argued that concealed carry permit holders are law abiding citizens and have passed all the state requirements and expense outlined earlier. The other, Danny Walsh, said, “The problem is that for 200 years it has been understood in America, and one of the reasons no one has invaded us, is that everyone here has a gun and can use it. And the fathers of those 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds have been going to war for that right and other rights. I don’t want to infringe on a right that the federal government gave us 200 years ago that is reasonable." Walsh is exactly correct with the exception that it was not a right bestowed by the federal government, it was seen as a God given right and the federal government was to preserve it.

These debates are an example of why I am no longer a member of the National Rifle Association. They have been known for a lot of compromise on gun rights rather than being rigid such as Gun Owners of America and Grass Roots North Carolina. The NRA will attempt to influence national level elections, such as for Congress, but will not get involved in local elections, even though they have local field representatives. They can pull local databases to solicit local people for donations but refuse to use the same database for helping gun friendly candidates get elected to public office. I know since I have been down that road with them personally. Ironically, the very week that the NRA told me that local elections were not their concern regarding gun control, they moved their annual conference to another city because of the original venue’s stance on gun control. What hypocrisy.

I hope that all elected officials at the county and municipal levels take heed that people are tired of their liberties being eroded. Freedom loving, law abiding citizens are just that. It is the criminal element that is the problem, not people like myself who went through stringent scrutiny in order to exercise their constitutional right. There are no qualifiers on that right, but we still underwent unconstitutional requirements in order to “legally” exercise it . If that right is infringed, it is no more a right and is rather a privilege beholden to the privilege granter. Had people like me been around and were armed on the campus of Columbine High School, Fort Hood, or Virginia Tech, the outcomes may have been very different and lives saved.

Column for Dec. 1, 2011

During recent a Republican Presidential candidate debate, Newt Gingrich was asked about his views on the killing of “enemy combatants” who are American citizens living overseas and actively fighting against America during a state of war (such as Anwar al-Awlaki). A member of the press tried to chastise Mr. Gingrich saying that the “rule of law” required a court of law to take the decision to kill an American “citizen”. Personally, I found Gingrich’s answer brilliant and on target (if you pardon the pun). Newt Gingrich is often one of the smartest people on stage during debates, but I don’t know that he will be a successful candidate and capable of taking The White House in the next general election.

I recently had the same conversation with a friend of mine from high school. I take the side of Newt Gingrich which is that someone who is actively pursuing war against America need not be convicted of treason before he can be a target of war. My friend, Roger, a career military man, takes the opposite opinion, in that he believes that the Constitution requires that a bad guy be tried and convicted of treason before we can whack him because he is technically an American citizen by birth, regardless of where he currently resides. With Roger’s permission, I am sharing the conversation.

Me: [sharing a video clip of the relevant part of the debate] “Gingrich gets it correct and this media hack moderator is a bonehead.”

Roger: “Troy, are you kidding me? Guilty under review? Where is that in the Constitution? The alleged (likely happened but we still have an obligation to try a US citizen before we execute them, especially when we have the capability to bring them to justice, as we did in the case of Awlaki) crime Gingrich describes is TREASON. Treason happens to be the only crime specifically outlined in the Constitution. Article III section 3:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

“This is just populist drivel for him to get himself elected. Mind you, I'll vote for him if he is the nominee for one simple reason, HE IS NOT BARACK OBAMA.

“It really saddens me that the Constitution that I swore to defend and did defend for 21 years is so easily ignored.”

Me: “No, I am not kidding you. Where is it in the Constitution that someone who is actively engaged in war activity against the US (which is indeed defined as treason under the Constitution) and is resident in another country shall be captured, tried, and convicted rather than eliminated? The populist drivel is that he must be captured, tried, and convicted. When the individual is an active enemy, he is to be considered as such, regardless of his nationality. That is just common sense. If it means targeting someone actively involved in combat against the country, I do not see where the Constitution requires a criminal trial rather than an act of war during war.

“I am well aware of Article III Section 3. I taught on the Constitution and US history for about four years. Attacking your enemy in combat, regardless of the individual's nationality is not ignoring the Constitution. It would be different if we were no longer in a state of active warfare and the individual captured, or even that this scumbag was captured as a POW. THEN, we would have a case for a criminal case of treason and a reason for a trial. That is the nature of war. If a scumbag gets taken out during a wartime operation, c'est la guerre.

“If in the 1700's General Arnold was taken prisoner (and if the Constitution was in force then. But the Articles of Confederation did not have a provision for defining treason, only about extradition for, or as a reason to be able to inhibit freedom of speech in Congress) then there would have been a reason for a trial and a charge of treason. If he was shot and killed during an attack on the enemy, I can not fathom for one moment that there would have been a debate whether or not it was wrong to have put a musket ball through his head while engaged in warfare...”

The conversation was longer than this, but it is a relevant discussion about the future of our country and how we conduct our affairs. On the one hand, the arbitrary power of an executive to declare someone an enemy combatant and summarily execute them could lead to a slippery slope and the killing of American citizens at home or abroad without a court trial. On the other hand, it is also a matter of properly, efficiently, and swiftly conducting wartime operations in the case of scumbag terrorists plotting our demise.

Column for Nov. 24, 2011

I am looking at the charter for The Town of Selma,. I am looking for its general contractor’s license or business development license therein. I am also reading through NC General Statues Chapter 160A, which specifies how towns are to operate. I am not a lawyer and won’t drag through every jot and tittle, but I don’t see the power of a town to become a venture capitalist. The only thing I have read that even remotely comes close is “A city may contract with and appropriate money to any person, association, or corporation, in order to carry out any public purpose that the city is authorized by law to engage in.” That would be a very broad interpretation.

I do see the power of a town government to regulate certain business, just not to create or subsidize them. Towns are given the right to levy taxes for various purposes, including “to provide public auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers”, the key word being public. One statute (160A‑279) says, “Whenever a city or county is authorized to appropriate funds to any public or private entity which carries out a public purpose, the city or county may, in lieu of or in addition to the appropriation of funds, convey by private sale to such an entity any real or personal property which it owns; provided no property acquired by the exercise of eminent domain may be conveyed under this section; provided that no such conveyance may be made to a for‑profit corporation.”

In last week’s “The Selma News”, I read with interest the article on The Rudy Theater. The article did not seem clear on the ownership status of the theater, though the verbiage did mention "the Rudy Theater will transition from your company to the Town of Selma..." That leads me to believe that the theater is privately owned by them, not the town. Thus, I checked with one of our elected officials on the matter and verified this. It also seems that the concept of Selma becoming a theater owner, partner, or builder was something sprung upon the Town Council, which makes me wonder about some of the politics behind this whole plan. I am wary of the idea of a town of only 6,100 (according to the town’s own web site) going into debt to finance a sizable private business venture.

If the property belongs to the theater production company, why would the town consider using taxpayer money to renovate/expand/rebuild a private business? Though The Rudy is a nice thing to have in the town, I have a hard time believing that we generate enough tax revenue from either the theater or its patrons to pay for the public expenditure for its expansion. If we are looking at building a new facility, why? If Rudy Theatre Productions could afford to buy The Rudy and even do some renovations, they can build a new facility more to their liking themselves. For the town to consider both building a new facility and taking over the old is a double cost in that we will pay for the new construction plus for any renovations and upkeep of the old facility.

Just on principle alone, I would have a problem with the concept of the town paying for a private facility. Why would we subsidize the leisure activities of a few people? First, the majority of Rudy patrons are probably not local townspeople. I see buses come in from all over for their quality shows, and I doubt seriously that they heavily patronize our local establishments. Especially since, we have no restaurants to speak of in downtown any more, so we are not getting sales or meals tax revenue from them. Next, if the people are from out of town, why would the town subsidize residents of other municipalities to partake of their chosen leisure activities like live shows?

This is my major quibble with the building of sports facilities for football, basketball, and baseball teams. A sports team owner decides that he wants a nice, new stadium and threatens to leave town if he doesn’t get one. The town, state, and county involved generally capitulate and either perform major renovations (a la Five County Stadium) or build something new (like Charlotte, Minnesota, or other major sports areas) and the taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars to support the leisure activity of sports fans and for the employment of professional athletes. At least with major sports teams, the local economy generally sees a big benefit for hotels, restaurants, facility rent, naming rights, concessions, sales, local employment, etc.

I personally like to go to the firing range, but the town does not supply a shooting range for my enjoyment. There are more people who own firearms in Selma than go to the Rudy, I guarantee. Why would we not enjoy taxpayer subsidy for our recreation? Is it fair to subsidize one activity over another? For what purpose? The prestige of having a theater in our town, even if it is of little economic benefit? If we are going to subsidize businesses, since Selma chose to become "The Antique Mecca of the South", why would we not subsidize privately owned antique business to attract more patrons and boost sales tax revenues and the occupancy rate of downtown businesses? Why this one niche of business over others?

Let’s ask the citizens of Roanoke Rapids and Halifax County how the public expense of building a performance theater worked out for them. I drive to Roanoke Rapids regularly for business and pass by the empty theater often. They had a tenant with some major backing lined up and even performing regularly. Millions of dollars and several legal actions later, the town has ended up owning the entire complex and is deep in debt.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for allowing The Rudy to expand their own facility and am in support of even using the designated revenues set aside for marketing through The Johnston County Visitors Bureau to promote the theater along with other attractions in town. I am just not in favor of the town building their facility for them at taxpayer expense.

Column for Nov. 17, 2011

I did not get to watch the municipal election results as they came in on television last week. I got home from vacation on Monday, and tried the best I could to catch up with all the stuff one has to do when coming back to work after a week off. I did manage to wade through some 600 or 700 emails, handle some communications, pack a suit case, go vote at my neighborhood polling place, and eventually head to Durham. After working there for the afternoon, I took off for Charlotte, which is where I am as I write this column. I watched the election results via my laptop computer and the County Board of Elections web site. That was good enough for me.

I read the vote count for the Selma mayor’s race and the town council race. I checked several web sites for local news outlets, as well. One local news outlet got the reporting wrong and it is still wrong as of this writing. It said that we have three seats on the Selma Town Council and the mayor’s position that were filled in the election. The last I knew, we had two of four town council seats up for election every two years and the mayor up for election every election cycle.

Personally, I was glad to see the outcome of the mayoral race. I have made no secret of my dislike for the methods of leadership employed over the past six years. I don’t like bullies or dictatorial leadership. I don’t like forced annexation, tax hikes, corporate welfare incentives, or wasting money on frivolity.

Congratulations to Cheryl Oliver, our new mayor elect. I believe in giving praise where praise is due. Mrs. Oliver ran a good campaign, which I expected after seeing her previous campaign for town council. She has been articulate, willing to listen, and laid out her views. I have not always agreed with all of her views, but I can appreciate that she has been able to articulate and defend her views. I can only hope that Mrs. Oliver serves with the same enthusiasm and slant on things as she has shared with me in conversation.

I know that Tommy Holmes was out campaigning this year, probably more than previous years. On a personal level, I like Tommy Holmes. I wish that his message was deeper, broader, and more articulate than “don’t raise taxes”, but that message apparently resonated with voters. When I ran for town council six years ago, I was relatively unknown, could do little campaigning, and Mr. Holmes got just 14 more votes than I did. I compare that to the latest vote where he garnered more votes than anyone else, including an incumbent and a long time public servant and former councilman. He seems to have worked harder this election. I know that Tommy came by my home while I was on vacation and he got to speak with my mother-in-law, who was house, dog, and babysitting while my lovely bride and I were out of the country.

In looking over the election results for neighboring Wake County and was sad to see that Heather Losurdo lost her runoff election for the Wake County School Board. The boldness of the school board in reversing the insanity of busing children across the county may eventually be reversed with a progressive, liberal majority again in Wake County.

As I wrote, I was stuck in Charlotte for the night of the elections. In Charlotte, Democrats swept a huge majority for town council and won the mayoral race. There looks to also be a shake up in the Mecklenburg County School Board. I don’t know what Charlotte and Wake County voters are thinking, but apparently they have not yet had enough of higher taxes, high spending, and Communist like social engineering.

There is one thing that I do know. There is another election coming up in just a few months for the Presidential Primary season. Also, there is another municipal election coming in another two years. Two years after that, every person just elected for town council and boards of education will be up for re-election. Every few years, we get the chance to change course and fix wrongs. That is the wisdom of our republican form of government.

Column for Nov. 10, 2011

I wrote about voting with your feet several weeks ago. I just ran across another such instance. My lovely bride too the family automobile to an automotive service establishment for its routine service. I tend to have this performed on regular basis. For years, we have been taking our personal and my company vehicles there for oil changes.

With this particular establishment, I had taken my company vehicle there just a week prior for service. I noticed that the management and staff seemed to have changed since my last visit. Certainly the demeanor of the personnel and level of service I got was less than to which I was accustomed. Still, when the family mini-van needed service, my wife and I figured that this place would be fast, even though it was slightly higher priced than I like to pay.

When the wife came home with a bill of over $130 for an oil change, my curiosity was raised. The company had performed unauthorized service on our vehicle. When I called them to inquire about it, I was informed that my wife had authorized the work, which is something she emphatically denies. Knowing that my wife is not prone to telling falsehoods, I had confirmed with her ahead of the phone call as to the details of the experience. Basically, the manager there called my wife a liar. Well, they just lost my business, my company’s business, and that of my family and friends.

By the time this column is published, the local municipal elections will have taken place. Whether I wrote this weeks or a day in advance, I would not yet be able to comment on the results because of publishing deadlines. I want to know that a candidate is well informed, has looked at the issues, and shares most of my values before I will consider voting for him or her. I wrote earlier about not having found any election guides yet on the internet, but I read the one for the municipal election in the October 27th edition of “The Selma News”. I must admit that I was disappointed in what I read there. How in the world does someone running for local elected office turn down the opportunity to have their views published in the local newspaper? Three candidates only had, “Declined to comment” listed by their names. I can only assume that someone running for office believes that they can do better than the current crop of representatives already in office. That means that you have to convince voters of that concept. I specifically look for local candidate interviews and responses to issue questions.

Some of the candidates that did answer slightly disappointed me as well. On the one hand, one candidate “would like to see more police officers on the street and more programs for the senior citizens.” Then the same person says “under no circumstances I feel taxes should increase. I feel taxes should be decreased.” Well, we can’t have it both ways without substantial cuts in personnel and services elsewhere. We get the level of services for which we are willing to pay. If we are not willing to cut some services for the benefit of other ones we deem as more worthy and/or raise taxes, we can not afford more police on the streets.

Just about every candidate mentions the high rate of rental properties in town. I often wonder if this is a real issue to some, considering the rental property interests of some on the Town Council, but that is another issue. I agree that we have a disproportionate amount of renters in town. However, that will not change unless we make living in our “Charming Place to Be” enticing to new residents who would purchase homes.

All but two candidates discussed the need to keep taxes on the low end. One danced around the issue, and the other only stated that any tax increase would correspond to increased expenditures.

So, what does any of this have to do with the recent experience at an oil change shop? I just hope that we citizens and taxpayers don’t ask for one level of service, get something other than what we asked, and have to pay significantly more than we wanted or expected. If we do, more potential businesses and residents will be dissuaded from coming to our town.

Column for Nov. 4, 2011

It is an odd numbered year. Signs are all over town for local candidates, whether they are large plywood ones, cardboard ones, or plastic ones. It must be municipal election season. This is pretty much an open letter to any candidate running for municipal office, in any town, but primarily my own.

I don’t know the position of every candidate running for office in my hometown. There are incumbents who have a voting record that I have followed. There is at least one candidate from whom all I have ever heard expressed for years has been, “Don’t raise taxes”. There are candidates with whom I am not familiar and have heard nothing about their views. As of this writing, I have looked for articles and questionnaires about candidates, but so far nothing has been found. I am writing this column a few weeks ahead of time, so I can understand why that may be the case.

The first thing I would say to candidates is to not be afraid to do what you were elected to do. If you were elected to stop irresponsible spending, then do just that. If you were elected to keep the tax rate down, lower utility costs, etc., then stand firm and do it. Do not let bullying tactics and political pressure keep you down. I was telling two candidates that I really want to see an end to dictatorial style leadership in my town. They were in full agreement.

As a citizen, I am interested in eliminating the superfluous spending on stupid stuff. I commented years ago about how the Town of Selma has Christmas lights on all year long and was criticized for my stance that it is tacky, a waste of electricity, and unnecessary. I stand by those comments, especially when I drive through town at night and see so many strands and bulbs that are burned out or non-functional throughout downtown. What a waste. Other wasteful things were the hiring of consultants for an unused “streetscape” plan, for a proposed new town hall, and for someone just to apply for a historic neighborhood designation. The historic neighborhood designation would realistically only benefit those who had older homes and have their personal egos stroked by having a house so designated. Those thousands of dollars could have been much better spent on fixing sidewalks, cleaning up the curbsides of town streets so they are not jungle-like, and many other projects.

I keep hearing one common theme from citizens and the couple of candidates with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking. That is about lowering the high utility bills in our public power community. I agree that something needs to be done, but it is probably more involved than just trimming rates. In reality, we need to divest ourselves of the electricity business and let private industry take it over. There would be more regulatory protections, lower rates, and we would get the exact same product. By and large, if a business provider can be found in the phone book, we probably should not have government doing the job.

I am a big proponent of personal freedom and property rights, unless those rights infringe upon my own. This can apply to forced annexation and the extension of planning jurisdictional authority. We do not need to greedily bring in more square miles in order to grow our town. We need to offer a better climate for growth. It seems that there are some sorts of businesses we can’t keep going in town. We do need a better approach to downtown development. I was opposed to the all antiques, all the time concept fifteen years ago and still am, as just one example.

Speaking of business development, I am not a fan of incentive packages for business. We need to be judicious if we are going to use them at all. I read about an incentive package the Town of Selma is giving to a Wendy’s franchise to build at Exit 97 off the interstate. Quite honestly, it is a good location and a serious business would be building regardless of an incentive, but at least the package offered was not a huge one. If it goes awry, or even well, taxpayers can get the short end of the stick, as with Dell, Verizon, FedEx, and other businesses that relocate to North Carolina.

Even Sysco was a successful failure as an “incentive”. Though Sysco came to Selma, the company calls the Selma facility its Raleigh Division, the facility has not necessarily employed a bunch of Selma residents or attracted hundreds of people to live in Selma. Even their vice president bought his house in Clayton, not Selma. There is so much more that I could write, but brevity is not my friend this week.

So, candidates for public office, know that citizens are looking for common sense, fiscally responsible, and freedom loving governance. Hopefully, the citizenry will hold you accountable to these standards.