Column for May 24, 2012

For the past couple of weeks, I have been slammed with work and family. When I have been home and do get to catch some news, it is in small fragments and my television viewing has been rather limited to whatever I can squeeze in between video-on-demand reruns of “Barney” and “Caillou”. Both of those shows are my 33-month-old’s favorites and anyone with fairly young children knows exactly to what I refer. When I do get to watch television shows I like these days, I am holding a baby bottle to my six-week-old’s mouth and hoping that I don’t encounter projective spit up afterwards. Yes, life has been extremely hectic, frustrating, often stretches my patience to the limits, I am grateful for it all.

I guess that this is all part of “cocooning”, as I call it. I ran across this to some extent when we had our last child. The affairs of life and family keep parents of young children busy. I don’t know if I am glad that I had to wait until I was over 40 until my firstborn child came into the world or not. I certainly have a different perspective on life and what is important in my 40’s than I did in my 20’s. In some areas I find myself infinitely more patient but in others still lacking. If there is one thing that I have learned is that having children, especially a toddler that is a Ritalin candidate, is that I am certainly only human.

I shared with the pastor of a Garner church recently only a fraction of what I had on my mind. I was literally in tears at his father’s funeral, not because I knew his dad well, but because he did. I lamented for his loss but also that I could never have a conversation with my own father while growing up and even into my adult life. He suffered a stroke while still younger than I am now, and I was only a toddler. His fine motor skills and some memory were affected, but his speech and temperament suffered most of all. See, my pastor friend is the son of a pastor, and had the good fortune of being able to get counsel from his dad on pastoring and on life in general. If I ever wanted anything in my youth, it was to be able to look to my own dad as a source of wisdom. I would have traded anything to have been able to have had a normal father-son conversation just once in my life.

For years, I vowed never to be like my dad was in how he treated other people. When I find myself getting angry and frustrated, I often reflect on how I was hollered and cussed at incessantly and don’t want to be that way to my boys or bride. With three boys in the house now, like I said, I am reminded that I am only human. I don’t condone child abuse, but I understand it. My dad was physically, emotionally, and spiritually sick. I don’t condone the way he acted, but I understand it.

For years, I have collected books on theology and history, hoping to share them and knowledge with my progeny. I have also intended to sit and read many of the books I have obtained. I used to be a voracious reader but have had little free time in which to enjoy that simple thing in recent years. I consider myself somewhat reasonably autodidactic, but I could always stand to do more. Fortunately, I now have a somewhat decent reference library for when I do need it. Hopefully some of the investment I am trying to make into the next generation will be of some avail.

I was never raised with any real political or religious opinions in the home, but I hope to change the course of instruction on those topics in my own home. See, political and religious views were considered excessively private. The name Jesus Christ was never used in a positive manner in our house, and God had a last name that began with D. Other than that, I was told nothing about politics but was angrily told that all Catholic priests were homosexuals and that all television preachers were just money grubbing scumbags. Now that I have been a born again Christian for over twenty years, I tend to think the latter to be more accurate than the former.

I chuckle at the comment about priests for two reasons. First, I heard just within the past few days that the homosexual brother of the man who told me that passed away at the age of 80. I wish I could have been able to see Uncle Raymond again before he died.

I have known a bunch of Catholic priests over the years, and though I personally have doctrinal issues with Catholicism, I have met some good priests and some bad ones. Though there have been recent scandals in the Catholic Church over the issue of child molestation, it reminds me that they, too, are human. I certainly am not condoning their sin, but I understand dealing with sin in one’s own life. That is the whole reason I still need Jesus. I am, after all, only human.

Column for May 17, 2012

The primary election finally came and went here in North Carolina.  Many of the races turned out as expected and some as hoped.  I pretty much figured that Amendment One would pass.  Thankfully, North Carolina is now the thirtieth state to pass a “defense of marriage” style state constitutional amendment.  There were amazing media blitzes that only intensified days before the election.

I have stated numerous times that I am more libertarian than most conservatives or even Christians on dealing with civil affairs.  If someone wants to live a homosexual lifestyle, I am not going to stand in their way.  I disagree with endorsing that lifestyle by forcing a vast minority view and morality on the vast majority via law, however.

I was astounded by the outright lies and false accusations about the ramifications of Amendment One.  For those who don’t recall, Amendment One was the constitutional amendment ballot initiative that would reads in part, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”.  Most of them surrounded the loss of benefits to children of homosexual or single parents, the inability to obtain protective restraining orders for victims of domestic abuse, and discrimination claims.  Some of these were so outlandish, law enforcement and district attorneys even had to go on television to refute the falsehoods.  This did not stop the ads full of hate, lies, and deceit, though.  Nor did it stop allegedly tolerant people from vandalizing or stealing the political campaign signs opposed to their views.

People I know who I consider to be fairly intelligent and educated totally bought into some of the lies and even were trying to get others to oppose the initiative based upon these false claims.  I couldn’t believe what I was both reading and hearing from these people.  Every position I heard or read against the amendment was a blatantly specious argument coming from total emotion rather than truthfulness and reason.

How is it that people who label conservatives and religious folks as being intolerant are so tolerant of anyone with a form of deviant behavior but not of anyone who has an opinion that differs from theirs?  I was literally told that my parents did not raise me properly if I simply supported the idea that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  That does not make me a homophobe or a bigot.  It makes me a traditionalist who believes that marriage has been defined as man and woman with differing views on the numbers involved for all six thousand years of recorded human history.

When people railed against the amendment using secular reasons, I discussed the issue using secular logic.  When people discussed the amendment using religious reasons, I did the same.  To be honest, I cannot fathom how anyone can come up with accurate theological reasons defending the redefinition of marriage.  I saw ministers of religion come out on both sides of the issue, each side claiming to have the mind of God on the subject.  I wonder what religious documents both sides have been reading sometimes.

One argument against Amendment One was that it was pushing one particular religious view on everyone in the state.  Well, the truth is that if a redefinition of what constitutes marriage were to pass in any state, it would be no different.  Whether the values are permissive and liberal or traditional, someone’s religious values would end up coming out on top.  Even if the views are atheistic, atheism is a religious belief.  One ridiculous assertion was that in passing Amendment One, North Carolina just instituted Sharia (Islamic) Law.  Such a harsh and ridiculous statement deserved a harsh reply, which I gave.

Another argument against Amendment One was that it took away civil rights.  Well, you can’t take away rights that don’t exist.  North Carolina law already stated what the constitutional amendment states.  Another assertion was that we should oppose the amendment on the basis of equality.  If we can equate the marriage of one man and one woman with that of two men or two women, we essentially have said that there is no difference between men and women and their natural roles in marriage and family.  If that is the case, we should immediately abolish Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day.

Our glorious leader, President Barack Obama, has formally come out in favor of homosexual marriage and now a major news magazine is featuring his picture on the cover, dubbing him as the “First Gay President”.  I guess he had to be a “first something” President since Bill Clinton was already dubbed the “First Black President” before Obama was ever on the scene.  The fact is that this is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.  Ergo, this endorsement following the North Carolina election is moot, in my opinion.  If someone in North Carolina thinks that that this state is too backwards and full of bigotry now that we have a marriage protection amendment in our constitution, there are 20 other states that don’t have one.  After all, if someone can make the choice to be a homosexual and have a monogamous, committed relationship, they can also choose to live in a state that will be friendlier to their own choices.

Column for May 10, 2012

I read in last week’s “The Selma News” right on the front page that former Mayor Charles Hester has publicly said that the town should not cut its electric rates and instead should take those funds and construct a building on speculation in its new industrial park.  The idea was to attract industry to come to Selma by showing that we are serious about new tenants and have a move-in ready facility.  Mr. Hester has long championed the idea of increasing the town’s tax base.  On that, he and I are in total agreement.  We just differ vastly on how to accomplish that end.

It all comes down to the idea of the proper role of government.  I am much more of a free market person, believing that if there is a place in the market for something, then business will make it happen because of the motivation of profit.  That has been the driving force behind the capitalist system for centuries and has made America the most powerful nation on earth.

I am fully in support of the current Selma Town Council and mayor lowering the electricity rates that Selma charges.  Ever since I moved to Selma ten years ago, I have lamented the high utility rates.  Towns that participate in Electricities or are “public power communities” do their communities a disservice with higher than necessary electric rates for the sole purpose of extracting more revenue from their citizens.  I wrote some time ago (June 9th of last year) about how my electricity bill that month was almost exactly $100 higher than the rate I would have been charged had I bought my electricity straight from Progress Energy.  That $100 should by all rights be considered taxation.  Since the only method of receiving revenue by a government is by extracting it from its population, then a cut in the profits from the retail sale of electricity in Selma must equate to a tax cut.  A 3.5% rate cut for individuals or a 2% cut for businesses is not a big cut, but it is a start.

The former mayor is a real estate developer, so he is going to view town progress and purpose through that lens.  I could do the same with a background in both media and safety and take a great interest in seeing those aspects of the economy take the foremost position in my thoughts.   However, it is best to take the general welfare of the town into consideration.  That means protecting citizens and businesses from undue taxation and excessive costs of doing business.

I have spoken to a good many residents and some business owners in town.  One thing that is a common thread with them all is the high utility cost burden on their budgets.  Personally, I had one of the highest utility bills ever just a month or two ago, and it was a difficult with which to cope.  I have seen businesses have to shut down parts of their buildings and totally turn off their air conditioning systems just to be able to afford the confiscatory utility bills the town charges.  I don’t care if other public power towns charge slightly more than we do.  That does not negate the fact that our rates are still far above the fair market value.  If a private utility company charges $x, then that is fair market value.  If our town charges $x + $y, then y = taxation that is above the fair market value.

I have read the town charter and even the state statutes governing towns.  I do not see anywhere the purpose of government being to engage in speculative real estate development at the expense of the town’s captive utility customers or even property tax payers.  It is the purpose of government, however, to attempt to create an environment in which a capitalist economy can thrive.  Low utility costs, low taxes, good infrastructure, and less government regulation will do more to bring in business and residents than any edifice built for real estate speculation.   When the town brought Sysco to town, Selma was not sufficiently attractive enough to bring its vice president or employees to town as promised.  Why would anyone think that having a building that may or may not be sufficient for a potential industrial tenant would do any better?

To keep high utility taxation high or even borrowing to dabble in real estate speculation will not be the key to our future.  This was understood by James Madison when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on February 4, 1790.  "All that seems indispensible in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former."  Madison understood the purpose of government.  Keeping excessive burdens of taxation via utility costs for us now or in the future is not it.

Column for May 3, 2012

It is not all that unusual for me to be stuck in a hotel room instead of being with my family at night.  I occasionally have to travel for my job, and thankfully it is not an every week thing.  Though I would much rather be at home with my toddler saying “Hold me, Daddy!” because he is a bit jealous of the new baby and enjoying a home cooked meal with my family, this is a small sacrifice that I have to occasionally make in order to keep and properly execute my position of employment.  How is all of this relevant?  Well, it relates to the frustration my wife and I experienced this past weekend.

We were shopping for some household essentials, and we were not sure how we were going to pay for all that we put into our shopping cart.  I understand being on a tight budget.  I have gone through periods of lean times.  I have gone through periods of abundance, as well.  My wife has not been working for three years now, and we are minus an entire paycheck each and every pay period.  However, we decided that we would suffer through anything we had to in order to allow her to stay at home and raise our children rather than her work to have just enough to pay some day care center employees do it for us.  Add to that the high utility bills in Selma, a mortgage, car payments, and now a monthly payment for an expensive new air conditioning system, and we have a tighter than desired monthly budget.

Ahead of us in line at the checkout was a couple with at least one infant (that is all I saw at the time) paying for their groceries with three separate transactions.  The first was a WIC voucher, the second was paid for with a food stamp card and a little bit of cash, and the third was yet another WIC voucher.  My wife and I just looked at each other in wonder.  We had three children with us and a full grocery cart.  We had to come up with a method of paying for our own groceries and there we were helping pay for the groceries that were purchased in front of us as well.

Add to that the frustration that the couple were definitely “English as a Second Language” class candidates of most likely questionable legal status, and we were all the more frustrated.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies (as long ago as 2004), the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" costs approximately $1.9 billion per year.  I almost wanted to follow Julio and Maria home and let them serve us supper.  After all, we helped pay for it.  As we were leaving the checkout lane, what did we see behind us?  Another couple with a food stamp card in hand to tender payment for the cart load of groceries.  I am reminded of a quote I read recently from one of our Founding Fathers.

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects.  It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.  Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

~ James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (January 10, 1794)

My wife and I attend a church congregation in Garner.  It is a bit far to go for worship services, but we chose that group of believers out of relationship and preference.  We have been overwhelmed with the graciousness of our church family yet again, who love to bless people in that congregation with meals whenever someone is sick or has a newborn baby.  Others have been blessed as well, going through the loss of a family member.  That is what the Body of Christ is supposed to do to minister to one another.  Locally, there is a church right down the street from my house that gives away groceries every Thursday to people in need.  I just wish I didn’t see some of the same cars and people there week after week, still in need.

As James Madison realized, it is the job of the Church to provide such charity, not necessarily that of the government.  As I am away from my family as a result of being willing to work some long hours and make some small sacrifices in order to feed my family, I am also reminded of the Bible verse in 2 Thessalonians3:10 “... if any would not work, neither should he eat.”  Nonetheless, I am still frustrated in seeing others eat at the expense of others every time I go to the grocery store.

Column for April 26, 2012

Have you been listening to the radio ads, watched some of the TV ads, or seen the roadside signs for this political campaign season?  I was amused by several candidates and their claims or position statements.  Quite frankly, I don’t know how some of these candidates can possibly run on their positions.

I often drive through Harnett County.  James Clark of Dunn is one candidate for state legislature that has some of the absolutely worst campaign signs I have ever seen.  First, they are very busy, meaning that there is far too much printing on them to be able to read while driving down the road.  What I was able to see was “support Obama”.  That means that he is basing his candidacy for state office on his willingness to be complicit with the socialist agenda of the current regime in charge of the national government.  Apparently, turning America into a socialist paradise and usurping the power of the very governmental body for which he is seeking membership is just fine with him.  I almost wish that I lived in Harnett County just so that I could vote against such stupidity.

Just as stupid, in my opinion, was the claim by one candidate running as a conservative, also for the North Carolina House.  Jim Fulghum (House District 49) is a neurosurgeon and a Tea Party favorite.  I am all in favor of a candidate that is conservative and is opposed to the whole Obamacare agenda.  However, Fulghum is running on the platform of opposing Obamacare while running for office at the state, not federal level.  Obamacare is a national government program and legislative act, not a state act.  Therefore, to campaign on the concept of fighting national health care is ludicrous to me.  Oddly enough, his web site says nothing about being against the abhorrent health care law, but that is about all that has been in his advertising thus far.

The only way that a North Carolina legislative body can combat something like Obamacare is to pull a move like South Carolina did prior to the Civil War and say that in North Carolina, Obamacare is null, void, and no law.  That is exactly what is being done in Missouri right now.  Their state house has passed Missouri House Bill 1534.  That bill states “The general assembly declares that [the law] exceeds the power granted to Congress under the United States Constitution and therefore is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.”  Personally, I agree with that quote from the Missouri bill.

I have been surprised to see some of the signs both pro and con regarding Amendment One on the ballot May 8^th.  Amendment One, as you may know, is a proposed amendment to the North Carolina constitution.  If approved, the proposed measure would amend Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by adding a new section containing the following:

"Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.  This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Though I have been extremely busy with a newborn, work, medical procedures, and life in general, I have offered to serve as a county coordinator for one organization in support of Amendment One, since there is not one in Johnston County.  So far, nothing has transpired on that front.  I suspect that this close to the election, nothing will happen.  I am having a hard enough time getting yard signs at this point in support of Amendment One.  For what it is worth, I have seen far more signs in support of Amendment One than in opposition to it.

What amazed me were the signs I have seen in opposition to Amendment One.  One sign in particular is in the front yard of a Presbyterian church elder.  Some people simply don’t mind being apostate, even believing that they are virtuous in their beliefs of acceptance of things totally antithetical to the faith they espouse to uphold.  I, for one, fear God more than man on an issue like this.

With politicians like Bob Etheridge, Barack Obama, Senator Kay Hagan, and Governor Beverly Perdue in declared opposition to Amendment One, I find that sufficient reason to make me want to vote for it.  I have seen absolute hateful, lying garbage and false claims from those opposed to Amendment One.  A common lie is that it is a civil rights issue and that the rights of many would be abridged.  No, there is no such right to homosexual marriage in North Carolina as it is, with state legislation prohibiting it.  This would merely codify that law as a constitutional provision.  I am fine with that concept, since it is harder to overturn a constitutional provision than a state law.

This election year is sure to be one of the most important in my lifetime and will determine the fabric of American values for generations to come.  Our American culture will either be reaffirmed or rewritten.

Column for April 19, 2012

Recently, I got some feedback from a friend of mine on an old column that I wrote a few years ago and that I used as fodder last month for a television commentary.  I discussed the idea that the founding fathers of this nation debated and considered requiring property ownership as a pre-requisite to voting rights.  The idea was that since at the time, the primary taxation method was that on property, only those who actually own property are the ones who should be able to vote for those who would set taxes upon it.  That is a concept that I truly like for municipal and county voting, since that is the primary method of taxation at those levels of government.  Furthermore, I believe that those who receive a government check for their subsistence other than via employment should not be able to vote for those who set our national taxation rates.

I made the comment, “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.”  For that, my friend chastised me saying, “Vote with the good of the whole in mind?  Think of the collective? This is what the left wants, collective thought.  I know it was a slip, but BAD TROY!  Self-interest is good, big government is bad that leads to those voting for more government and stuff.”  I knew what he meant, and he knew what I meant.  I agree that self-interest is what drives capitalism and for men to advance themselves, their communities, and their families.  This led to an interesting conversation.

I said to my good buddy, “Yes, the good of the whole.  When one votes with only the paradigm that “I want what I can get from the public treasury”, it is what the big government progressives want.  When it is the concept that even if I don't benefit the greatest from the public largesse but can take responsibility for my own actions and if everyone else does the same, that is the public good.  When taxes are lower for all, that is the public good.  When politicians don't rob responsible citizens and give it to those who won't work, that is the public good.  When the opportunity of all to succeed through the capitalist system is the goal of government rather than equality of outcome, that is the public good.”

We had a brief back and forth from there, with him saying “I know what you meant however it could be inferred as the collective good i.e. the state over the individual.”  I wrapped up my end of the friendly debate by saying, “When I wrote it (some time ago, actually.  It was an old column from a few years ago), I figured that the context of the statement was pretty much, "Stop trying to mooch off us taxpayers by voting for welfare supporting filii illegitimi!"”  The Latin expression was substituted as a euphemism for the vernacular term I actually used.

When I speak of the collective good, I am not using an “it takes a village” communistic mentality.  Even though not everything government does may be in my personal best interest, it can be for the best of all citizens.  Second President John Adams wrote in a letter to Mercy Warren exactly 236 days ago to the day of my writing this column (April 16, 1776), “Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.”

In theory, government is supposed to operate toward certain ends.  In the Bible, the Apostle Peter wrote, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (1Peter 2:13-14, ESV)  Paul affirms this concept in Romans 13:1-4, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.  Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?  Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. “  

I have to admit, though, that with a government that does not properly praise those who do good but rather creates and environment whereby many sponge off those who actually do good, this is a difficult thing for us that are being crushed by taxes and bad government.

Column for April 12, 2012

It is the day after Resurrection Sunday as I am writing this, and I am thinking about Tuesday morning when I will get to hold my newborn son in my arms (past tense as you read this).  Here I am almost 44 years old and my bride and I are having another baby.  I commented on my Twitter account on Sunday, as we were anxiously awaiting little Benjamin’s arrival, “Today we celebrate a vacated tomb. Sharon and I hope to soon celebrate a vacated womb.”  Just today we got the news that our doctor wanted to schedule the delivery of our baby on Tuesday morning.

To give you an idea of where my thought process was going, earlier in the wee hours of the morning, I had written on my Facebook account, “I was woken up by a coughing fit (I think that my bronchitis is coming back) and laid awake for a while thinking about my next newspaper column and TV commentary. Yeah, I write those things in my head several times before ever typing them out.  I figured since I was up and needed my inhaler [prescribed for the recent bout with bronchitis], which was at my desk, I would sit and check online stuff.  The whole time I have been thinking about the impending birth of Benjamin, whose due date is just over a week away. I kept thinking about God's love, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and how he loved me enough to give his daughter to me and entrust me with my family. This picture [that I shared online] was taken on our wedding day and is perhaps my favorite ever of Sharon and [my stepson] John.  Matthew was conceived the next day, and now baby Ben is almost here.  What an amazing journey it has been to have gotten here.  John has grown so much since this photo.  Lord, may I become the man you want me to be, the father I need to become, the husband I desire to be, and the son you have re-created me to be.  Thank you, Father God, for your grace, your love, your patience, your mercy, and your salvation through Christ, my risen Lord.”

I have given a lot of thought over the years about the values I want to teach my children.  I have my personal convictions, and some of them I will not push upon other people outside of my family, since they are just that, personal convictions.  I don’t mind sharing them, however.  I disagree with many of my contemporaries on some things, even with how one celebrates Resurrection Sunday (I don’t even really like calling it Easter).  I am amazed at how many churches, for instance, sponsor an Easter egg hunt.  I don’t equate the handling of pagan fertility symbols like colored eggs or cute, fuzzy bunnies with the risen Christ.  Nor do I personally find it glorifying to Him.  However, I am not about to condemn those who do celebrate as such. 

I don’t teach my boys about Santa Claus and I cringe when well-meaning people ask my children if “Santa has been good to them this year”.  I will teach them that what began as a great remembrance of a man of faith has been twisted into a fairy tale of commercialism and magic.  Santa will take on the same relevance as Shrek in an animated movie.  I just have a problem telling my children that there is a man who can break into everyone’s house across the entire world in just one night; that he knows when we are sleeping, knows when we are awake, and knows when we are bad or good.  I cannot in all good conscience ascribe attributes of deity (as my theologian buddies would say, incommunicable) to a mere mortal.  If I can lie to my boys about a mythical individual, whom they will eventually disbelieve, how can I expect them to believe in an omniscient God whom they also cannot see (shopping malls and parades with posers in red uniforms excluded)?

I have a hard time teaching the existence of a Tooth Fairy when teaching that Tinkerbell is only a cartoon character.  I have a hard time with teaching the existence of an Easter Bunny and yet teach the truths of Christianity over animism, and that Bugs Bunny is just a cartoon.

Again, these are only my personal thoughts and convictions, and I am not going to condemn anyone who promotes mythical holiday characters.  Every major holiday these thoughts come to mind, and especially now, since my baby boy is about to arrive.

 

Column for April 5, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column for March 29, 2012

The Wake County Board of Commissioners deserves credit for showing courage and common sense by a majority of its members.  Recently, they voted 4 to 3 to pass aresolution supporting North Carolina House Bill 351.  That bill was vetoed by Governor Perdue, but would have been a great step in our state towards eliminating voter fraud.  House Bill 351 would simply have required that voters show a valid identification when going to the polls to cast a ballot.  There has recently been talk of an attempt to override the governor’s veto.  That would be an excellent opportunity to bring common sense to elections.

The big argument against the idea of requiring identification in order to vote is that it would deter people from voting by intimidating old people, and that poor and young people would not have the means to obtain the required identification.  I’m sorry, but this has got to be the most specious argument I have heard in a long time.  If you are elderly, then you most likely have had some form of identification for a long time.  If you are young, you probably have or are going to attempt to obtain a driver’s license.  If you are poor, you still have the need of bank services and transportation to get and use what little money you do have.  When I was poor, and I was for years, I still worked a job, drove myself to work, and cashed the tiny paychecks I received.  I have been working since age 15 and have had a driver’s license since age 16.  Do those who make this fallacious argument really expect me to believe that someone who is poor cannot scrape up the one time investment of ten dollars to obtain even a state issued identification card?

Our old friends at the state NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Crazy People) have sent letters to county governments warning against passing local versions of voter ID laws.  Of course they are playing the race card, as usual, claiming that voter ID laws disenfranchise potential voters.  The real motivation is to stop the prevention of voter fraud.  Without requiring an identification to cast a ballot, people who are not registered to vote, are not qualified to vote, or want to vote multiple times may have a chance at doing so; and of course, voting to support their socialist agenda.

I have to show or carry identification when traveling outside the country, in order to drive a car, to board an airplane, when getting certain pharmaceuticals, when applying for a job, when opening a checking account, when applying for a credit card, when registering a car at the DMV, when seeking medical attention, when donating blood, when purchasing a firearm, when buying automobile insurance, when getting a marriage license, when purchasing a house, when renting an apartment, when purchasing alcohol, when opening an IRA, when establishing electrical service, when writing a check, when getting a library card, when checking into a hotel, or when applying for a passport.  So the NAACP means to tell us that their constituency never does any of that?  Just recently, I had to provide ID to my employer yet again to comply with government regulations for I-9 forms and the E-Verify system.  I have been at my job for over 17 years, have gone through this same procedure numerous times, and yet I had to provide valid ID yet again.  It’s no big deal.

The voter ID bill in North Carolina would require one of eight valid forms of ID.  If someone can’t come up with just one, then they are either too stupid or too irresponsible to cast a ballot.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was highly debated about requirements for voting.  The requirements were not as simple as being a certain age and just showing up at the polling place.

Arguments against voter ID laws also include the premise that voter fraud is rare.  I would contend that voter disenfranchisement is even rarer than voter fraud.  It is just common sense that if we exalt the concept of “one man, one vote” and fairness in elections, we would take every reasonable measure to ensure that voter fraud is eliminated, that those not qualified to vote do not vote, and that the person voting is who they claim to be.  There is no requirement that you actually cast a ballot.  If you don’t want to show a simple form of identification to validate your vote, then you do not deserve to be able to vote.  Politicians and pundits that oppose voter identification laws simply want to make it easier to perpetuate fraud and their agenda, plain and simple.

Column for March 22, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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