Column for June 25, 2009

K.I.S.S. No, I am not referring to a great rock band. Remember that saying? Keep It Simple, Stupid! How hard is that? Keep things as simple as possible. Often, the old ways can be the best. Perhaps old ways have become old for a reason; they work.

Simple things can go a long way. A little simple affection from a spouse or child can go a long way. A little simple maintenance on a car can also go a long way. Simple things in town can go a long way. I want to share some simple things with you that have been of great benefit and something not so simple that is a bane to all North Carolina citizens.

Here in Selma, there are some things being done for the very purpose of simplification. If you have been reading this newspaper, you have seen advertising for public hearings on proposed changes to town ordinances. Many of them are for the better. A few, not so much, and I have pointed those out in past articles.

Some of the simplification for the better include the town's Planning Department attempting to get rid of the complex charts and tables in the town code for zoning regulation. Since I have been on the Planning Board for a while, I have had the privilege of seeing some of the work being done to that end. It is good to see some common sense and simplification. Keeping things simple and comprehensible will make code compliance and enforcement much easier.

Tangential to that is the performance of some simple things that go a long way to enhance the town's image. As you may have read, the town has worked to put a little more bite into its enforcement of the ordinance prohibiting tall grass growth in town. That is a simple thing that helps neighborhoods to look better and preserve property values.

One of the worst offending properties of this ordinance is right next door to me. The house used to be nice but is abandoned and in a state of disrepair. Every summer, I have to contact the town several times to complain. A $50 dollar fine is not going to get an absentee property owner to cut their grass. The town added hourly fees for labor to mow properties that are out of compliance. Perhaps that will help get action by property owners. If not, at least the town can continue to mow the lawns when they are out of compliance and keep the town looking better, all the while billing neglectful property owners.

I had conversations with property owners in times past about this concept. I am all for private property rights. I believe my record on this is clear. However, the rights of a property owner end where my property rights begin. Tall grass up to my chest is unsightly, is a breeding ground for insects, mice, and snakes, and affects the property values of neighboring tracts. I did not by a house next to the Muster's haunted mansion. I bought a house next to a house that at one time was fairly nice. Because of total neglect by absentee owners, that property and its lot have become a barren wasteland. That affects me. I have more problems now with fleas than ever before because of the jungle next door. If I choose to relocate, I will have a harder time than normal selling my house if tumbleweeds and prairie grass are blowing in the wind next door.

To the town council of Selma, I give thanks for their action on that issue. There are plenty of other simple, inexpensive things we can do as a town to improve. I only wish the State of North Carolina had the same view.

I read that Governor Perdue is calling for higher taxes "to save" education. If money was the solution, then we would have the best educated students in the entire world. We spend a tremendous amount of money on education in North Carolina and across America. Yet we get comparatively low results for those dollars. Obviously, the answer is much simpler than throwing money at the problem.

Instead of K.I.S.S. principles, we hire more principals. Instead of returning to rudimentary, time tested methods of teaching, we return sometimes untested and unqualified educators to the classroom and demand more money for their retention. Instead of operating on minimum staffing, we acquiesce to teachers' unions and settle for minimum results with maximum staffing. We obviously need to simply K.I.S.S. the current education system goodbye and stop robbing both taxpayers of their money and students of their education. Simplicity goes a long way.

Column for June 18, 2009

What Bizarro parallel universe is this again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for June 11, 2009

Now that the emotional noise has died down about the proposed cut for Selma EMS budget item by the Town of Selma, it is time to consider how next year's fiscal handling of this same matter will play out. As was reported in this very newspaper, the Town Council voted to restore the full $30,000 budget level for the EMS operations.

I am 100% in support of our EMS operations, employees, and volunteers. I have great respect for what they do. I have done what they do for a living. I personally used to ride on an ambulance with a local rescue squad. I responded to sick calls, automobile accidents, and health emergencies. I even still have my expired Emergency Medical Technician certificate in my file cabinet in my office. I have no real problem with the fact that the Town Council voted to restore the budget for the Selma EMS squad this particular time. I do, however, believe it is time for Selma to cease this unjust expenditure.

The Town of Selma is giving money to subsidize a county function. If the Emergency Medical Services for Johnston County are to be run and paid for by Johnston County, then the burden of funding must be the sole responsibility of the county.

Selma is forking over tens of thousands of dollars every year for services that also serve the towns of Pine Level and Wilson's Mills. That being the case, it is patently unfair for the taxpayers of Selma to have the full burden of financially subsidizing the operation of the local EMS.

My thoughts on this subject are much like those I had on the Selma Police Department converting to the county's 911 dispatch center rather than maintaining our own separate police dispatch operations. As county taxpayers, we are already paying for the county's 911 center operations. As Selma residents, we were paying for a duplicate service which is tantamount to double taxation. When the county is responsible for paying for EMS operations with tax dollars and we end up paying at the town level, too, we are in essence being double taxed for the same service.

The tax burden of the money we give the EMS comes from a small pool of taxpayers, which means a greater amount of money per capita for that service. Take that same amount of money and spread it across the larger pool of 157,000 county residents instead of the 7,000 Selma residents, and it is less of a per capita burden. The proposed $30,000 EMS entitlement on the backs of Selma taxpayers amounts to approximately $4.29 per resident (not necessarily taxpayer) whereas that same thirty grand amounts to just nineteen cents per resident of Johnston County. That is a savings of $4.10 for each Selma resident. Furthermore, it places the burden of finance where it belongs and does not unfairly burden Selma residents with subsidizing the residents of its neighboring towns.

Now is the time for the Selma town leaders to work to get the county to pay its own way for its own operations instead of allowing the Town of Selma to burden its own people. The EMS crew deserves to have solid, regular funding from a regular source. Sure, I believe in being frugal with that money and cutting reasonable expenses where necessary and able. I just believe in fair funding, i.e., taxation.

I do have one question in all of this. When the town was allegedly in so much financial distress a few years ago, people were laid off from the town payroll, employee benefits cut, and budgets were slashed, why was the same argument about paying the county's debt not brought up then? Which employee's job could the town have kept with that $30,000? Or for that matter, how many rusted old water towers could we have torn down for that money? It is time to take it up with the county manager for next year's county budget.

Selma Town Manager Richard Douglas, who reportedly was the initiator of the budget cut, is on the right track towards removing this expenditure from the town budget. The methodology and timing of a highly emotional topic, however, were errors in judgment, in my opinion.

Column for June 4, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for May 28, 2009

Should you be required to own property in order to vote in this nation? "Preposterous", you say, "not in America! That is totally against the fabric of our nation's founding!" Believe it or not, this is a long debated subject that goes back over 200 years.

The Founding Fathers had heated debates about whether or not to include requirements such as property (land) ownership in order to be able to cast a vote. Personally, I believe that to be of great benefit and merit to a nation. I believe it would especially benefit us here in North Carolina, in Johnston County, and in little old Selma.

In August of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention was meeting to discuss their first outline of the revised constitution. It was the middle of summer 212 years ago in a building with no air conditioning. The doors and windows were all shut and the drapes drawn closed. Men were hot in their temperature as well as demeanor. And representatives of the several states were debating the merits of various proposals line upon line, precept upon precept.

One of the principal architects of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris (that was his name, not his title) of Pennsylvania argued strongly for land ownership as a requisite for suffrage. Benjamin Franklin argued against the concept, lauding the common man and the responsibilities for the elected to not limit the freedoms of the electors (voters).

Which view is correct? Is it legal to restrict who can vote? In the Constitution, we presently have provisions that one can not be denied the right to vote based upon race, sex, and failure to pay a poll tax for anyone over the age of 18. However, there is no provision that says you must own property. Nor is there the provision that you can not be denied the right to vote if you do not own property.

Here is the wisdom and how it applies to us. Here in Selma, the last statistic I heard was that 61% of the residents are renters. That means that only 39% of the potential voters directly feel the bite of property taxes for the town and county. Why should someone who does actually pay taxes in this town be able to vote for someone who is going to determine the level of taxes the minority of us property owners pay? Is that fair? I say not, since they do not have a reasonable self-interest in how residents are taxed.

I also feel the same way about income taxes. Should anyone who does not actually pay income taxes be able to elect those who will set the income tax rates and determine how tax dollars are spent?

People who receive public tax money for their livelihood are dependent upon the entity from which they receive their stipend. Therefore, if these same people are eligible to vote, they will elect those who will most likely continue to support them financially. This is the insidious plan that has been in place since the 1960's. Enslave people financially and they will vote against the interest of the masses for their own benefit. A suckling pig will not voluntarily diminish its food source.

The term disfranchisement was used even in 1787. The term was not invented in 2000 when some falsely accused George W. Bush of "stealing an election". The term was then used in regards to placing qualifications on the right to vote. The term of "taxation without representation" was a long used battle cry in the young nation and part of the reason for the revolution. Just as bad, however, is "representation without taxation".

That last concept was not lost on some of the states in the 1700's. There were indeed such restrictions or qualifications for people to be able to cast a ballot. Their reason was much the same as mine; that people who pay taxes actually have an interest in how the government that extracts such taxation uses said monies.

I am under no illusion that we will ever see such qualifications for the right to vote in this nation, state, county, or town. I would settle for having all who would cast a ballot considering the good of the whole population rather than their own dependencies. That sort of thinking has gotten us career politicians, higher taxes, insane government spending, massive debt, and corruption. Some of our Founding Fathers had great wisdom...but that wisdom is lost unless we are willing to learn from them.

Column for May 21, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for May 14, 2009

Determine your core values and stand thereupon

A friend of mine commented to me a few days ago that she thought I was a Libertarian, meaning a member of that political party. I must admit that many of their beliefs fall within my scope of opinion. There are some views, however, with which the Libertarian Party and I diverge.

I had commented upon my support for Chad Adams for the chairman's position for the Republican Party of North Carolina. I left the Republican Party several years ago because I saw a serious leftward slide in the party, lack of local support at the county level for local candidates, and a general malaise amongst the GOP leadership.

I have met Chad, corresponded with him, and read behind him for several years. He and I have many of the same values when it comes to the role of government, the size of government, and personal freedom. I had commented more than once that if Chad wins the chairman position, I may just be persuaded to rejoin the Republican Party.

Chad is not necessarily a politician, but he is what I consider to be a core values sort of guy. He is what he is and sticks by his beliefs. I am very much the same way. I have values applicable to politics, religion, family, and most other facets of life. My values have been forged over time, have been revised, and often extended as I have read, studied, prayed, and fellowshipped with others.

My core values, though many of them are similar to the Libertarian Party, are antithetical to that party's current platform. For instance, I am staunchly pro-life in the abortion debate. When standing for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", nothing could embody that view more than standing up for the rights of the unborn. As a former fetus, I am glad that I am allowed liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and above those two, life. That is just one example, but it is one of my core values.

By the way, this is a core value that I did not always hold. It is one that came as a result of maturation, a total change of heart, God's grace, and logic. At one time, I was an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion. I assented to this to the point where, and I am not proud to admit this, three of my own offspring were slaughtered in utero when I was a young, stupid heathen. This is just one reason that I am excited about the upcoming birth of my firstborn in about 10 weeks.

Core values can get you into a lot of trouble. They can also be the only way you can withstand with peace of heart. Core values can cost you a lot. They have me during my lifetime, and yet it is because of those losses that I have learned to stand firm.

I fellowship often with church people. I have said for years that one of the greatest parts of being a Christian is that you get to be around the saints of God. I have at the same time said that one of the worst parts of being a Christian is that you have to be around the saints of God. This dichotomy has at times made me gregariously misanthropic. Yeah…I know…but just look it up.

My core values in the faith have been tried. When years ago I was booted out of the very church congregation I co-founded, I had to stick by my convictions. It took years, but I have enjoyed a little slice of vindication in the past few months. Without those core values, how could I know I was doing the right thing when I stood firm?

My point is that in politics (just as in matters of religion, etc.), I have opinions. Those opinions are based upon careful consideration of what my core values should be. My friend who thought that I was a Libertarian because I was not a registered Republican recognized some values that were similar. I am libertarian in my views, meaning that I believe in liberty and the God who gave us our liberties. I am not Libertarian according to the so-called political party. My values make up who I am, not some party name.

Political parties come and go, slide to and fro in their platforms. I have resolved that my values, however, are forged and will stand. They may continue to be refined as I continue to age and mature as a man, but they will guide me nonetheless. If your political party has left you, then you are in good company. If your church denomination has left you standing on your core value beliefs and you watched their collective values slouch towards Gomorrah, you are in good company. Forge your values, then stand firm.

Column for May 7, 2009

Swine flu, government control, and your personal freedom

It is axiomatic that those who have power do not voluntarily relinquish it. Rather, those with power usually seek more of it. We have seen this as a society on all levels of life, whether it is business, small town government, state, or national government.

I have received scathing reviews for pointing these things out, though they should be plain as day even to a casual observer. Along with the warnings about power grabs have come real life examples. Yet I was called an alarmist, as if I was the little boy who cried wolf.

What happens when the wolf is indeed stalking his prey? What if the wolf was so cunning that he was able to take advantage of a diversionary scare in order to secure his position? Folks, that is exactly what we see going on right now.

I type this while coughing from time to time and sniffling. This is not to mention the lack of energy that comes from the onset of a head cold. And yet I don't mind saying that the current scare of the Swine Flu is no big deal. In fact, I am tired of hearing about it. Every day, every hour, newscasts are barraging us with fears of some mild strain of influenza. Why are we hearing so much about it? It is a mere scare tactic to condition sheeple into accepting government directed control for the sake of avoiding an epidemic. And the news media is soaking it up for a lazy sell in order to have something to report.

Amongst the clamor of the alarmist rants about an epidemic, I have actually heard health experts occasionally get their message through that the Swine Flu is nothing to worry about. In fact, there will be fewer cases of Swine Flu infections than normal influenza. And yet we hear the newest death toll each hour on the radio.

Scared sheeple will buy into the tactics and allow themselves to be controlled over something minor. Yet these same sheeple have criticized people like myself who have been warning about socialist incursions into our everyday lives.

I was told I was crying wolf about socialism and yet now the federal government owns huge chunks of General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, and Citi Bank at your expense. I was told I was crying wolf about attempts at gun control, yet I have read about legislative bill after bill that provide for stringent restrictions on your freedoms. I was told that I was crying wolf about the increasing control on what you can and can not express in public, and yet I read just this week about a mayor of a small town that had one of the town council members arrested for speaking his mind at a town council meeting. The list goes on and on, folks.

I am amazed at the hysteria over a mild strain of influenza by both the government and the media and yet there is no call for sealing off the southern border of the United States, which is where most carriers of this illness enter the country. Of course it would not be politically correct to call for that, since these same people are the ones who want wide open borders and do not mind an influx of people from third world nations full of disease.

In the Bible, in Matthew chapter 10, Jesus said, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That is a good principle to follow in life in general, not just in Christianity. We are told that there are "wiles of the devil". There are wiles of the world's system as well. One very effective wile is to scare people into accepting more and more control and to give up more and more freedom in the name of peace or safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

In the coming days, keep watching the news, keep listening to the tactics employed by the mainstream media, and watch what our governments at all levels do. You will see the Law of Entropy at work. It does not only apply to thermodynamics; it also applies to our society as well.

Column for April 30, 2009

The fun you can have with a little boy in the house

I can not count the number of times that my lovely bride has made the comment that she already has two boys to raise and now has another on the way. She has one son, there is me, and then Troy Junior who will arrive in about a dozen weeks. My father had five boys, my brothers all had mostly boys, and I had a lot of male cousins. I am used to how boys play and interact. My wife, having only a sister for a sibling, is getting a lesson in what boys are about.

Since we married in October, there has almost never been a dull moment in the LaPlante household. With two dogs, two cats, three birds, a kindergartener, a mother-in-law, and a newlywed couple, things are often boisterous. I have wanted children for years, and I am having a glorious time being a father.

Boys are different than girls, which was actually a headline some years ago for a major national news magazine. Since I had a younger brother while growing up and was raised with a sharp, New Englander, sarcastic sort of wit, I know the fun one can have with a boy in the house, much to the chagrin of my lovely bride.

My step-son is now at the age where he is discovering new words and the fact that boys and girls are indeed different. I am constantly amazed at how children categorize things. In his words, "girls do not have pickles". This is news to a six-year-old, and I can only chuckle. I can tell that I am going to have a chat with him in the not too distant future about some things.

With my propensity towards humor in every day life, I often find humor in things that make my bride blush. The boy came up to her one day and asked, "Mommy, is _____ a bad word?" My wife was aghast with the shock of the question and I was about rolling on the floor with laughter. I was informed how I was not helping the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile, I was wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes.

One day, I was driving on Pollock Street in Selma, and seeing the establishment, the boy asked, "What is a pawn shop?" My answer was simply, "They sell chess pieces". His reply was simply, "Oh," while his grandmother fought to hold back her laughter from the passenger seat.

John has just found out that he likes showers instead of always taking a nightly bath. I love the fact that the shower curtain is drawn, because he does not see me coming like he would if he was taking a bath, instead. A cup of cold water dumped over the top of the shower curtain and onto an unsuspecting child is a favorite past time. Ah, I can hear those little screams of surprise now. I can expect some payback eventually when he gets tall enough to retaliate. I am sure he now has a new tactic to practice on a baby brother of his own some day, as well.

I wish I had my video camera ready one day when I heard a small boy's voice singing as he banged on his toy keyboard. John loves country music. He was hitting the keys with one hand while holding the toy microphone in the other. In a singing voice that would make Simon Cowell wince, he was wailing repeatedly, "I saw God today," and doing his best George Strait imitation. That was funny enough as it was. Then he proclaimed, "OK, just one more song, then y'all can leave church!" I chuckled softly as I waited to hear what was coming next. He then broke into the 1980's pop favorite, "I'm too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt!" Ah, the things you see and hear without a camcorder in hand. So much for our appearance on "America's Funniest Home Videos".

Speaking of catching things on video, a couple of days ago, I was asked about an old movie that was on TV. "Why is that movie in black and white?" I couldn't resist. My answer was something akin to, "Well, a long time ago, the entire world was black and white. Old movies were made before the earth started to turn color in about 1939. Do you remember the movie, "The Wizard of Oz"? The movie started out in black and white and then suddenly turned to color. We have documented on film for all posterity the world's change over from black and white to color. That is what made that movie so famous."

Yes, sir, I am enjoying being a daddy. And in a few months, I get to have another victim…I mean son to play with.

Column for April 23, 2009

Congratulations to my fellow right wing extremists

Now that I have been labeled by my own government as a dangerous "right wing extremist", I have news for you. Many of you who read this column are now classified as such, too. And I guarantee that many other people that you know are also now classified by the Department of Homeland Security as extremists. What did we do to gain such an honor? We simply believe in a government following its own Constitution.

For those who oppose a North American Union, gun control, abortion on demand, illegal immigration, forced universal government service for all citizens, infringement upon United States sovereignty, and violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, you now have your own file in some government database and are labeled as an extremist.

If you think that I am making this up, there is a 10 page bulletin just released by the Department of Homeland Security that I have on my computer right this moment that says so. Apparently the socialist bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. believe that returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are potential future domestic terrorists.

The left wing has been poking fun at the right for having tax protest rallies, anti-illegal immigration rallies, and associating anyone who opposes the current governmental policies as a "skin head", racist, or neo-Nazi. I have seen and heard such comments my own self. The ironic part is that the Nazi Party in Germany was not a right wing party. They were leftists. They were The National Socialist German Workers' Party.

I have never heard of right wing radicals (now consisting of your average, everyday citizen of this country that loves freedom and a constitutional republic) being violent and inherently racist. Lest we forget, it was the left wing that opposed the Civil Rights Act. It was a leftist activist that shot Abraham Lincoln. Right wingers who attended tax protest tea parties across the nation last week were entirely peaceful.

Compare that to the left wing protesters at UNC Chapel Hill last week. Imagine that…left wing socialists at Chapel Hill. Who would have thought that could happen? An acquaintance of mine had organized an event at UNC through the Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee. You may have heard that former candidate for President, Tom Tancredo from Colorado was the guest speaker. ALIPAC had a video camera rolling and put the video on the internet. I got to see the footage that no television station was carrying.

Ignorant college students were protesting the fact that Mr. Tancredo, who was my second choice during the Presidential Primaries last election season, was going to speak about the topic of states allowing illegal aliens to get in state tuition rates at state universities. Before the event began, students were protesting, illegally blocking building exits, and attempting to impede the event. During the talk, students strung a banner in front of Tom Tancredo. They would not listen to reason and only wanted to be disruptive. A protester outside the room broke out a pane of glass to the external window and chaos ensued.

The very same ideologues that have been harshly critical of "right wing extremists" and warn of "right wing domestic terrorists" themselves became a brand of terrorists of their own. They resorted to violence and attempted to squash any voice of dissent. Freedom of speech is fine if it is in their favor, but must be stopped at all cost if it is of a different perspective.

That same philosophy has become prevalent in our government. Any voice of opposition must be silenced. The opposing views must be forcibly stopped. That, my friends, is not American. It is not ethical. It is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is hypocrisy in action. That, my friends, is what you have elected to office at our state and national levels.

I am in good company, though. The voices of Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many others held the same freedoms dear to their hearts and risked their lives to stand by their convictions. They would have been labeled radical right wing extremists. Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and even Jesse Helms would have been labeled as right wing extremists.

If you believe in smaller government, lower taxes, the right of a baby to be born and not killed in utero, in following the United States Constitution, and the punishment of criminal behavior, then you too are now a right wing extremist. The federal government may have a file on you by now. Congratulations, comrades, you have now been classified by your own government as a potential domestic terrorist.

Column for April 16, 2009

It is unethical to pay for someone else's irresponsibility

As a parent, I shudder at the thought of someone other than myself teaching my children about sex. I have a boy who is just now asking questions about babies, how his mother is going to get the baby out of her tummy, and wondering how the baby came to be. For those with a Judeo-Christian or even Muslim world-view, there are ethics that go along with the practice of sexual relations. Primarily, I believe that sex education should take place in the home and be received from caring parents and reinforced with the ethics and responsibilities of such.

There are interesting ethical debates surrounding the consequences of sexual activity. Just recently, I have been involved with two in particular. They are not only ethical in nature but also practical civic lessons.

A fellow conservative writer shared a news story on the internet about how an HIV/AIDS prevention program for African nations instituted under President George W. Bush has released data showing that there has been a 10% decrease in the spread of AIDS in those nations since the program began. Sure, a decrease in the spread of any disease is good news. However, I have a serious objection to the program to begin with.

My objection is simply this. I see nowhere in the United States Constitution that empowers our country to simply take money supplied by our tax paying citizens and give it away to other countries, regardless of the "feel good" or even "do good" results. The Constitution's preamble states its purpose; "…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…"[sic] That is it. AIDS prevention in Africa does not fall under any of those categories.

It is therefore illegal and thus unethical to take the hard earned tax dollars of Americans and give them to some third world dictatorship in the hopes of disease prevention, as noble as that goal may be. Disease prevention efforts would be more appropriate if they were in our own nation, since that is more closely aligned with the scope of the Constitution. Even then, I am dubious as to its legality thereunder.

My conservative friend would argue that the program did good and thus was a good move. I argued that the disease is spread by behavior and it is inappropriate for us to spend money in another country for behavior modification. The return argument was of course that a large percentage of AIDS victims in Africa are children that got it from their parents. My retort is simple. Sex is a behavior with consequences. If you have AIDS, do not procreate.

The second example is that my wife and I were at her OBGYN recently for a prenatal checkup. While there, we saw a young couple with two children and another on the way. We heard them say that there was one other child who was not with them. Seeing a young couple having a family is a wonderful thing…or is it?

The family present consisted of a woman with a toddler, a baby no more than 6 months old, and the one on the way was 20 weeks along, so we heard. The mother was obviously taking care of the children. The father is disabled, apparently blind. The couple was paying for their visit through Medicaid. Or more appropriately stated, we taxpayers are paying their medical bills.

I am going to go out on a limb here and surmise that the couple is also getting other government assistance in the form of WIC, food stamps, Social Security disability, and who knows what else. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

For a toddler to have a baby brother or sister so close in age means that the couple procreated soon after the child was born. To have a baby six months old and a 20 week pregnancy means that they procreated yet again shortly after the baby was born. Look…we now know what causes pregnancy. Actually, we have for thousands of years now.

For the taxpayers of this country to pay for a family to live and then to pay for their irresponsible sexual activities is just plain unethical. Birth control would have been a whole lot cheaper than bringing more crumb crunching tricycle motors into this world at public expense.

I am all for helping out others, especially as friends, neighbors, family, and church members. However, when do we draw the line and say that the bad decisions taken by people are not going to be paid for by the general populace? That is a matter of ethics just as much as the moral implications of having sex to begin with.

Column for April 9, 2009

Gun control only disarms the innocent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for April 2, 2009

My family and I just returned from a long weekend getaway. I have been thinking all weekend about what to include for this week's column. I keep a list of things on a notepad from which I can draw for ideas. Other times, like last week, I find an issue I can jump on immediately.

This weekend, I was struck by several things. I will not call them epiphanies, since they are nothing new to me. However, they sure reinforced my ideals.

We went to the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia to do some cavern exploring. I have been there before, but my wife and six year old have never been there. I knew what to expect in the caverns, and chose to visit Luray Caverns, their car and caravan museum, Endless Caverns, and on the way home, Monticello.

I was awestruck the first time I ever visited Luray. The magnificent rock formations, the immense caverns, the beautiful colors all were incredible to behold. The site was certainly very commercialized, with gift shops, brick paved walkways throughout the caverns, DVD videos of the area, books, shirts, and every sort of "touristy" trinkets you can imagine.

Endless Caverns, on the other hand, is very "mom and pop" style. The caverns go on further than Luray, but are less spectacular than Luray's caverns. They are not as clean and developed as Luray, but still beautiful.

What stuck me was the sheer magnitude and beauty of the two caverns. I realize that I was not asked to write a column on religion. However, I do want to take the time to relay how pensive such a visit, even for the second time, truly makes me. I ponder how big God is, how he created the earth, and how he is a magnificent artist. These caverns may never have been discovered, and yet the majesty would still be there underground. They would still be displaying His majesty even if us mere humans never were able to see His handy work.

I was amazed at the contrast between those caverns and Dinosaur Land. Hey, we had a six year old with us, so we had to do some kid friendly stuff, too. Though he was amazed at the caverns, he was not as excited at the prospects of visiting the Museum of United States Presidents as I was.

Dinosaur Land was basically wood framed structures covered with chicken wire and plaster. They depicted different dinosaurs. Just as at the caverns, there were descriptions of millions of years of time and evolution. I have to admit, I used to believe that garbage, but have been persuaded to be a believer in Creation Science and have long ago discarded such drivel.

Anyway, the attempt of someone to turn their backyard into a tourist attraction was just so dim in contrast to the glory of gorgeous caverns. I almost felt that way about Monticello, as well.

The more I read, the less that I am a fan of Thomas Jefferson. I have developed a greater respect for John Adams and less esteem for Jefferson. Anyway, that is entirely a different discussion for a different day. The bookstore at Monticello was phenomenal and I was able to add to my library of historical books. I just had to be temperate in my purchasing, because I found dozens of books I wanted to acquire.

I was struck by the undertaking of the estate and the manpower necessary to build that facility on a mountaintop over 200 years ago. It was completed 200 years ago this year. I have seen greater homes than Jefferson's Monticello, but for a 1700's plantation home, it was still beautiful.

Both Dinosaur Land and Monticello paled in comparison to the magnificence of God's creation as seen in the caverns. I was reminded that no matter how great man's accomplishments are, God's are greater. When magnificent homes are built for the world to see, God still displays his splendor even though it was hidden for thousands of years.

At one time, Monticello had fallen into disrepair and had to be restored. The caverns have only been getting more spectacular as time passes, as long as man did not intervene and break off stalactites (as was the case in the caverns. The practice was once encouraged out of greed so that the proprietors could charge by the pound for stalactite souvenirs.) One way or another, the rocks did cry out the glory of God.

Yes, I know that this is not a normal column, but I am not ashamed to declare the glory of my God and King.

Column for March 26, 2009

Being a gentleman does not equate to being a good representative

For years, I have been both critical and complimentary of our United States Congressman, Bob Etheridge. My philosophy is that if you are willing to complain, you had better be fair and be willing to give credit where credit is due.

I have been very willing to credit Mr. Etheridge positively when he voted against a gun control bill in the House of Representatives. I have also been sharply critical when ol' Bob sponsored bills that are patently unconstitutional or causes that are left wing and socialistic.

I remember when Bob Etheridge ran for Congress years ago. I was working in radio and interviewed him on the air immediately following the Railroad Days Parade in Selma. He dodged straight questions. After election to Congress, he did the same thing when I would interview him on the air. He would call the station asking to be put on the radio but did not want to have anything other than fluffy, soft questions thrown his way.

Last week, a liberal shill for the Democrat Party and staunch supporter of Bob Etheridge wrote a scathing letter to the editor impugning a regular reader and letter writer, David Speckhardt. Leon Lucas of Kenly skewered Mr. Speckhardt accusing him of basically being totally ignorant and uneducated about Mr. Etheridge and stated that the criticism was unwarranted as well as out of touch with reality.

I went back and read Mr. Speckhardt's short letter to the editor. He dealt with the recent voting record of Bob Etheridge. The fact that Mr. Etheridge has aligned himself with Nancy Pelosi and the far left wing of the Democrat Party is not debatable. Mr. Etheridge has continuously voted for and sponsored pork barrel spending that is not allowed by the Constitution, including two bail out bills amounting to trillions of dollars in spending.

Mr. Etheridge recently was quoted as saying, “Traders on Wall Street should not be able to get rich at the expense of folks on Main Street who are struggling. Taxpayer funds should not be used to pay bonuses to the very individuals whose excessive risk-taking caused the financial crisis that has harmed thousands of North Carolina families. When AIG has repaid taxpayers and is footing the bill, it is entitled to award compensation as it sees fit. However, I cannot allow the company to use taxpayer dollars for its executives greed.”

I say that you, Mr. Etheridge, should never have voted for any such bail out scheme at the expense of the taxpayers to begin with. It was government pressure and control upon mortgage companies and system that helped cause the problems. It is government involvement in the economy that is going to prolong the recovery, not help it.

I agree with Mr. Etheridge that it is imprudent of AIG and other companies to pay millions in executive bonuses to leaders of failing companies. However, I find it horrendously hypocritical to be outraged at the paying of executive bonuses that are a mere fraction of the money that the government is bilking out of the taxpayers of this nation in a scheme that is patently unconstitutional to begin with.

Mr. Lucas should perhaps read the United States Constitution. If he does not have one, I will gladly mail him a free copy at my expense. The same offer applies to every reader of this newspaper.

I am not going to defend Mr. Speckhardt's position, as I do not see that he needs any support. The facts do that for me. I will say that as ignorant as he was accused of being towards Bob Etheridge by a shill for a liberal representative, Mr. Lucas is far more ignorant of Mr. Speckhardt. David has actually read the Constitution. I have actually conversed with and met Mr. Speckhardt on several occasions and read his many letters to the editor in this and other newspapers. He is an ardent supporter of one of my favorite proposals, the Fair Tax plan.

In his letter to the editor, Mr. Speckhardt did not call Bob Etheridge names. He only questioned his support of whack jobs like Nancy Pelosi and the far left agenda. I do not care that Mr. Etheridge, "visits Kenly several times a year to check on his people and to determine what our needs and feelings are," as Mr. Lucas stated. I care that Congressman Bob Etheridge is voting totally against his oath of office regarding his support of the Constitution and is aiding the slow death of America with his votes.

Whether you like a politician or not is not the issue. The issue is proper performance. One can be wonderful at being wrong, as is the case here. It just means that ol' Bob is a good politician. It does not mean that he is a good statesman.

Column for March 19, 2009

Trying to not be weary and not faint in my column

I was just asked if writing a column each week wears on me after a while. To be perfectly honest, sometimes it does. Today is one of those days in which it does wear on me.

Sometimes ideas for columns just present themselves to me and I find easy fodder. Other times I start to bang away on my keyboard only to re-write with something else altogether. My biggest challenge is sometimes not what to include in a column, but what to leave out. I often have to go back and take things out of the column and still get the idea across. The newspaper's editor will attest to the idea that I can sometimes just keep typing like the Energizer Bunny bangs a drum. Sometimes, before I know it, I have doubled my allotted space. I have gotten chastised for that more than once. I thank the editor for his criticism and keep on typing with the intent to do better in the following column.

What wears on me at times is the wonder as to whether or not the effort is worth the energy and having any influence or not. I obviously have a set of ideals, cling to them like a pit bull, and am not afraid to express them. I have lost friends because of this very thing. I have lost acquaintances and connections with old friends, coworkers, classmates, and the like as a result. I have been kicked out of churches for the same tenacity to what I believe…nay, know to be truth.

What I can say in hindsight is that I have in almost every such case been vindicated. I have been proven correct, men have come to me later (sometimes years later) and apologized, or the facts just bore out as such. There have literally been times when I "knew that I knew that I knew" what I was pontificating was the honest truth. I have clung to that and when deep in my gut I know I am right, I am almost never wrong. When I am wrong, I am man enough to admit it, make corrections, and press forward.

So, with that being said, why would I be weary? I grow weary from time to time when I am so exasperated at the things I see around me and feel powerless to do anything about them. Usually it is when I am profoundly disgusted in general rather than at a specific principle.

What do I mean by in general? When I see trillions of dollars wasted on programs that will do little except get us into tremendous debt. I mean when I see terrorist prisoners about to be released from a prison to fight another day. I mean when I see this country announcing in advance to the world and to our enemies when they can expect to get no more resistance from the United States. I mean when I see the state of North Carolina raid the lottery budget to balance the state budget and yet spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

I mean when my taxes go up and see no real relief in sight. I mean when I see local spending at the municipal and county levels at an all time high. I mean when I see an invasion of this nation by illegal aliens and no desire on the part of our elected officials to stop it. I mean when our elected officials totally and blatantly ignore the Constitution. I mean when our system of government is usurped and we become a socialist nation. I mean when I see the Communist Manifesto played out before my eyes in the United States and I want to move to Iceland or Canada.

Sure, all these thoughts cause me to grow weary, make me want to throw up my hands in disgust, and ask, "Why bother?" However, if I am anything, I am tenacious in my beliefs. When I know something to be true, I latch on and hold fast. I admire those who are the same way. God made me stubborn about some things and it is my lot in life to hold fast. If it were not so, I would not be writing my little column about big ideas here in this little newspaper in this little town. Thank you, Lord God, for my opportunity and responsibility to do so.

Column for March 12, 2009

Why do I wake up scratching so much? Some canine logic for thought.

In my home, my wife and I have a baby gate placed in our bedroom doorway. Because of the construction of the hallway and the door jams, I have not installed the locking mechanism or hinge on the plastic swinging gate. It wedges in the niche at the door frame nicely. The gate is not in place to keep a baby in or out, but rather to keep my dogs from coming into the bedroom at night.

I have two dogs. One is a Pekingese that I have owned for about three years. Because she is white and beautiful, I named her Daisy. She was a special needs animal that was abandoned and was even on WRAL TV, which is how I found out about her story. I adopted her after she was rescued from certain death at the animal shelter. Daisy's news story and follow up story are on the internet on her myspace.com page or youtube.com. My other dog is a mutt that was rescued from being chained to a clothes line in below freezing weather last year. I named him Slime Dog because when I rescued him, he was full of the slime of mud and his own bodily waste. I affectionately told him that he was a slimy dog. He responded to my calling him that, hence the name. He is part black and part white, so I have pondered renaming him Barack Odoga in honor of our new President.

The two dogs became best friends and are a source of both joy and frustration at times, as all pets are. The Pekingese used to be rebellious and still has some fits of insubordination when it comes to her being housebroken. One of her favorite spots was on my bedroom floor, hence the gate to keep her out. Barack Odoga has become very affectionate towards his humans over the past year he has been living here, and loves the indoor comforts of a house pet. He also still enjoys being in my fenced backyard and to go on walks. He loves to jump on my bed or my son's bed and snuggle. My wife, however, seriously dislikes sharing a bed with Barack Odoga, so the gate stays in place.

Besides the dogs, I've had two cats even longer. The two sweet felines are able to jump over the gate quite easily and love to come say hello, get or give affection, or sleep on the bed or dresser. Old Slime Dog could probably jump over the gate if he wanted to, but he has yet to discover that part. Sometimes when the cats jump over the gate, they will push off with their hind feet in mid jump and nudge the gate open just a little bit. As dumb as he is (I often call him "Stupie" and he responds nicely), Slimy is smart enough to know how to get his paw or snout in the slightly cracked open gate and push it open. That is when the fun begins.

I am a very light sleeper and am often have insomnia. I have for decades. When I hear the gate get kicked open, I know the dog will get his snout through the gate rapidly and will end up jumping on the bed, take up real estate on my king size bed, pull down covers, and inhibit free human movement. I can tell you from experience that a semi-conscious, annoyed pregnant woman is a she-bear and old Slimy gets shoved, kicked, and fussed at until he relents and leaves the bed. I, on the other hand, am more tolerant of canine snuggles and dog breath. Besides, Slimy does does not complain about snoring and will toss and turn less than my wife does.

What is the object lesson here? We have allowed the gate to be cracked on a lot of things in our government, family, and religious lives. We allowed money to be taken from the "locked" Social Security fund and now that money is part of general revenues and expenditures. We allowed money to be raided from the highway trust fund in NC and now Governor Perdue is illegally raiding the state lottery trust fund to balance the North Carolina state budget. We allowed no fault divorce, single parent homes, welfare programs, tax increases, homosexual agendas, liberal sex education programs, illegal immigration, gun control, worldliness, and so many other issues to enter through a crack in the gate instead of locking it down. Now we have to pay the consequences of a wide open gate and wake up with fleas.