Friday, November 11, 2005

Elephant Eating Peanuts in the Living Room II
The ignorant anti-American Kelo vs New London decision by five "Injustices" of the Supreme Court flies in the face of liberty. Our founding fathers disagreed over many issues, but there were several in which they were in total agreement; one of which was protecting a person's property. We all know socialists do not believe in personal property rights. They believe in the communal ownership of property. I say let them believe as they like. Let them argue and debate their position in the arena of ideas. Let their lobbyists take their ideas to their elected officials. Let their ideas withstand the test of debate and ultimately the test of the vote in the national and state legislatures. If it can pass muster legitimately, let it become law, and we will put the noose around our own necks.
Let us not allow five arrogants, whose claim to fame is that they each wear a black robe, create legislation by decree and stick our necks in nooses. The tactics these ignobles are using smack of tactics that another group, which wears robes on the opposite end of the color sprectrum use. Five people, who are supposed to protect and preserve ideas set forth in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, rather than "we the people", decided with Kelo vs New London that Americans no longer have the right to own property. Our founders, in their infinite wisdom designed a government that the people would rule themselves by means of a representative republic, not a government by five despots who have the brass to think they can overule the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
The elephant in the living room eating peanuts and drooling in the floor is that these five chose to ignore is that the founders assigned only a small role to the court, which was not to make or amend law, that job was assigned to the legislature. Laws were to be changed by representatives e-l-e-c-t-e-d by the people, not by five mistakes appointed by Presidents.
Just because these five say black is white, does that make it so? In one fell swoop have we now become a nation of men rather than laws? In one wreckless moment of delirium, two hundred years of legal precident was swept into a pile, scouped into a dustpan and dumped into the dempsey dumpster. What you will begin to see if this ruling is allowed to stand, is a land moving away from justice, not toward it. You will see one powerful individual having government confiscate property in his behalf, only to have government conficate his property by yet another more powerful, and on and on. All of this will be done in the name of the being for the "good of the community" but in truth because of greed of government officials and powerful interests. If allowed to stand, this ruling will introduce graft and corruption on a scale never seen before in this country. We will all be the losers. If our government will not protect what we have acquired by the sweat of our brow, then we in effect own nothing. The first five pieces of property confiscated by governement and turned over to some land developer ought to be the five fiefdoms, the homes of these self appointed regents. Article V of our Constitution"s Bill of Rights states " nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation". After damages done to the law are deducted, I think "just compensation" in each of these five cases ought to be about a buck ninty eight. That would be fair don't you think? They could use that toward their attorneys' fees. Now that's what you call just desserts. Howard L Stephenson

Monday, November 07, 2005

Terrible Organization Needs to Go
There is an organization in this country that is so despicable, so heinous, its charter should be burned on the steps of the White House. It is so evil it must be dismantled for the good of the future of America. Its hate-filled message must be eradicated so as not to infect the minds of future Americans. The A.C.L.U. and the People for the American Way has rightly attacked this hateful group, doing all in their power to destroy this insidious organization. At a recent Democratic Convention, this organization was invited to participate in the opening ceremony, but members of this group got up on stage and tried to spew its hateful message. Rightly, these members of the organization received their just desserts when the California delegation, booed and jeered them. Members of A.C.L.U., whose mission it is to protect us, are trying defund this group's degrading message. These rightious crusaders of the A.C.L.U. work tirelessly to stop these hatemongers from having any access to public property; public schools, parks etc. so you and I will be safe from this heinous group's evil message. The worst thing about this hateful organization, is that the leadership of this group is going after our children.
What message does this despicable group teach children? I will not put words into their mouths, I will let them hang themselves with writings directly from their mission statement.
"On My Honor". Can you believe that someone would the audacity to teach this message to an eleven year old? To even speak such a word as honor, is not that indecent?
"I will do my best". That message might just allow a person to strive for excellence. To do one's best, what a terrible thing to encourage a child to do, would you not agree?
"To do my duty to God and to my country". Duty, that is a four letter word, that should never, ever be used in the presence of a child.
"And to Obey the Scout Law." Evil, Evil, Evil.
"To Help Other People at all times." Why that may just prevent a young man from mowing down his classmates or teachers at a Columbine High School. We definitely should not encourage that hateful behavior, should we?
"To keep myself physically strong;" All of that camping, hiking stuff might just accomplish something heinous like preventing a young man from becoming obese, or being afflicted by diabetes.
"Mentally Awake," I disagree totally, we need more children to attend to the important task of sitting in front of a screen blasting space invaders, so blood and guts splatter the monitor, do we not?
"And Morally Straight". What a terrible message, "morally straight". Why that might just keep a boy from getting aids or syphillis. It might prevent him from smoking marijuana or crack. It might stop him from fathering and abandoning eight or ten children and their mothers. What would this country come to if that were to happen?
These are not the only messages this group spews. Let us now examine other insidious teachings set forth in their "Law":
'Trustworthy' You may even believe a boy who has been taught this, because he tells the truth. How awful. Oh my, teach a kid this, and why he not might rob a Seven-Eleven by the time he reaches eighteen.
'Loyal' What were they thinking when they devised this rule?
'Helpful' Help another human being, how rotten.
'Friendly' Why that would stop a young man from becoming a bully when in middle school, or when he becomes an adult, stop him from becoming a wife beater!
'Courteous' We cannot have our young men treat their teachers and classmates with dignity and respect. Why that would be unconscionable.
'Kind' Definitely bad. That may just prevent a teenager from setting fire to a cat, or beating a goose to death with a golf club.
'Obedient' Teach a boy to listen to his teacher in class, mind his parents, obey the law? Good Grief, what will they try next to brainwash a child?
'Cheerful' This rule might just stop a teen from developing what is called in today's venacular a "tude". I say a bad attitude is better than no attitude at all.
'Thrifty' We cannot teach this, why the kid may just become self reliant and not depend on the welfare state. No sir, we definitely cannot have that.
'Brave' No we do not need any people who have been indoctrinated with this message in our military to protect liberty, freedom, and to stop oppression.
'Clean' I would much rather see a young man covered in sores, yes even covered with lice. If he wore his pants above his waist, without his undershorts hanging out, why he may impress someone enough to land a job.
'Reverent' ." This is just another one of those silly "respect" rules.
Furthmore, they have and teach this silly notion "Be Prepared". Why if a kid is prepared, he might Give C.P.R. to a heart attack victim. How moronic is this?
By now you must have guessed who this awful, heinous, despicable organization which spews a message of hatred all over America. If you haven't yet, I will tell you; it is the Boy Scouts of America. Who could possibly support the Boy Scout's hateful message of duty, honor, self reliance, kindness? Who in their right mind could support the idea of treating other humans and our environment with dignity and respect? How can those who believe in truth and justice support an organization who promotes the idea that others have value? What an evil, insidious idea the Boy Scouts spew that earning something offers more and lasting satisfaction than having something given to them as a handout? Dan Rankin 2005

Friday, October 28, 2005

The ACLU elite will not be satisfied until all religions are destroyed except one. They would have All Americans worship at the altar of secular-humanism. The first target on their hit list is Christianity. After Christianity and Judiasm are destroyed, and the morality that both teach, those of the ACLU and People of the American Way will wonder why their children are being murdered in the street. They will wonder why their daughters and sons are being raped. They will wonder why their homes are broken into and vandalized or in order to prevent that from happening, why they are forced to live under the protection of armed guards in their gated fortresses. They will wonder, after all of the firearms have been confiscated from law-abiding citizens, why they are being robbed at gunpoint at their places of business. They will wonder how hell was created on earth. Howard L. Stephenson

Thoughts on Freedom
"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free! " P. J. O'Rourke

Monday, October 17, 2005

When man places his faith in man, man he is most often disappointed. How many times has man has followed man into great causes, only to be disappointed? Thousands followed Alexander the Great to wreak destruction and havoc on others, and in doing so many destroyed themselves. Man deserted the Roman republic to follow Roman dictators to glory, and in the process thousands of peace-loving Christians and Jews were oppressed or killed. Even the Roman Catholic Church, an organization founded upon the principles of justice, peace and love fell under the spell of evil men during the Inquisition.
Man, perpetrated evil in modern times. An oppressed Germany, rebelled and in doing so came under the spell of one who proclaimed himself the salvation of the great nation of Germany; Adolf Hitler. Man placed his faith in Marx, Engels and Lenin who preached the the implementing of communism to fulfill the dream of equality and brotherhood of man. Rather than creating a just society, one in which all were brothers and all were equal, communist man created the worship of the state and its leaders Lenin. These leaders perpetrated the slaughter of hundreds of thousands. Lenin was followed by Stalin, who in the name of equalty and brotherhood, killed tens of millions of his own people, and imprisoned millions more. Man placed his faith in Mao tse Tung, Pol Pot and the worship of the state, and again was disappointed. Unprecedented millions were tortured, imprisioned or killed. Closer home, Cubans placed their faith in Fidel Castro, who's message was that he would bring equality and freedom to the Cuban people. He too imprisoned thousands and had untold thousands murdered. Millions Cubans emigrated, many at the risk of death with only the clothes on their backs, to escape Castro's oppression. Castro was true to his word in one respect, he did bring equality (with the exception of himself and his cronies) to the general population. His policies destroyed the economy of a nation, reduced its population to poverty, so all Cubans could share misery equally. Cuba became Castro's personal island sugar plantation. His plantation was built upon the backs of slave labor; slaves of Castro's state, and slaves of the most high Fidel, chief priest of the communist state of Cuba. The revenues produced by the Castro plantation were used to support Castro's army and militia to oppress its own people. Furthermore Castro used his army, to further his vision (or more accruately, his delusion) of being an international leader. Castro supported the undermining of governments in Angola, Nicaragua, and other nations. Castro, just as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, enslaved his own people, and had them worship at the alter of the state, with him as the high priest.
The latest demigod is Osama Bin Ladin. He teaches that the "true believer" should strap a bomb on his chest and blow up Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. The "True believer" will receive 72 virgins upon his entry in heaven, when he blows up Russians, Americans, Philipinos, Indonesians and most expecially Israelis. (I wonder if the young lady who just blew herself up will also receive 72 virgins). Osama is an equal opportunity terrorist. He preaches killing back sliding Muslims as well. There is only one Osama does not recommend dying for the cause. That's right, you do not see any video tapes of Osama with even a firecracker attached to his chest, not even a sparkler, much less a stick of dynamite. He wants his followers to be suicide bombers in the name of Islam, but yet, he is unwilling to do so himself.
There have been few wars or revolutions fought that have ended up with more freedom, more equality. From the beginning of the history of mankind, most wars the loser's fate was to be oppressed by the winner. One of the exceptions was in 1776, when about 1/3 of the population of the American Colonies followed the lead of some very learned and wise men. Their vision was not a government of men, but a government based upon laws, one based upon justice. The idea that government should be based upon the idea, the Judeo-Christian teaching that all men were created by God as equals. There idea was not that all humans had equal abilities, or aptitudes, but that all me were equal before the law, and that the best government was the least government; the one that allowed the most freedom to its citizenry.
Did our original government have flaws? Surely it did. The practices of indentured servitude or worse yet, slavery, opposed the very nature and ideals of the government they implemented. Women were not given a direct say as to how they would be ruled, by being disenfranchised. But because Christians, and other thinking Americans knew in their hearts that slavery and indentured servitude, and not allowing segments of the citizenry to have a say in the way they were to be ruled, these practices were wrong and inconsistent with the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Indepence and our Constitution. Americans managed to work to and eventually change the laws to maximize freedom. Our founders believed that earthly laws, created and implemented by man, are subordinate to a higher law. These ideas, as set forth in the Bible and the Ten Commandments were incorporated into our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
We Americans ignorantly placed our faith in man once again. A group of Justices of the Supreme Court, appointed by man, decided that they were above the law; that they were above the power of the people; that they were superior to the legislative branch and the office of the President. That group of jurists decided that, they would take on the role of Congress, and invent new law. They ruled, when no previous legal precedent supported their opinions, that abortion was legal in the case of Rowe vs. Wade. Previously it had been left up to each state to decide whether a mother could kill her unborn child, with or without the assistance of a physician.
The main questions are: Based upon all of our history, all of our legal precedent, is it the federal government's job to determine whether killing an unborn child is legal? Just as in the case of slavery, is there a higher law than that of current ruling of Rowe vs. Wade. Under current law, is it moral or just to kill unborn children? In a free nation, one that espouses that all men (and women) are created equal, how can we as a nation justify this law? Abortion rights activists will tell us that it is better for the child of a crack addict to not be born, rather than suffer under the conditions they would be forced to live? Would it not be better to allow that child the chance to make that decision when he is able?
Abortion rights activists will always say "What about when a mother's life is endangered, should she not have the right to choose whether she lives or dies? This is a difficult question. However, this question oft times has been perverted to mean "What about if the mother's life is inconvenienced, should she not have the right to choose whether she is burdened with a child or not?" A really caring mother would choose for the life of her child if there was hope that the child could survive, just as many of us would give our kidneys, our lungs, or even our hearts even at the cost of our own lives if we as parents or grandparents could save our child or grandchild. There may be extenuating circumstances, such as the child's inability to survive that must be weighed against the mother's ability to survive.
Radical feminists are the biggest hippocrites of all. They are supposedly for the "rights of females", yet they advocate the destruction of female babies. How can they justify this paradox?
Most would agree that under Adolph Hilter, Joseph Mengele's use of abortions to experiment on humans to perfect a super race was morally reprehensible. Just because a majority of men in black robes, in a country calling itself a democratic-republic rather than dictatorship, ruled that it is legal to kill the unborn, does that make the practice any less heinous? Does it make it just? Does that make it right? In dictatorships, whether fascist or communist, those who participate in this genocide, and those leaders who allow it or encourage it, were judged to be monsters. In our democratic republic, since we are all supposed to rule ourselves, will we all be judged as responsible for each heinous act of abortion? Will we be judged for our cruelty and inhumanity for partial birth abortion? H L Stephenson

Friday, October 14, 2005

The Coat

In the Bible, Jesus said to give your coat to someone less fortunate than you. He did not say "Hand the coat to thirty nine bureaucrats from fourteen different local, state and federal
agencies only to have them rip off the sleeves, tear out the lining, cut off all the buttons, then and only then, hand the tattered rag to the needy." H. L. Stephenson

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Elephant Eating Peanuts
There is an elephant sitting in the recliner in the living room; eating peanuts and casting the empty shells on the floor, that legal minds from the socialist/liberal left ignore. These self- righteous believe in a "living-breathing" Constitution. They believe in a Constitution that conforms to their vision of what America should be, one that endorses genocide of those least able to protect themselves; one that says there is no black or white, no right or wrong; one in which that which is acquired by the sweat of one's own brow does not belong to them, but is to be conficated by those deemed by government to be more deserving, even if those people repeatedly choose to make the bad decisions by drinking too much alcohol, sniffing or injecting addictive drugs, smoking too many cigarettes, or by choosing to have babies they cannot afford to feed, house and educate, or businesses which operate in a manner that government must protect them from their managers' own bad decisions. These self appointed gods can bend or rewrite the Constitution to say what they want it to say, rather than what is says. The elephant sitting in the living room is the fact that the constitution already has a mechanism in which the Constitution can be changed. It is called an a-m-e-n-d-m-e-n-t. Rather than judges changing it, the constitution can be changed by the will of the people through l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-o-n. This fact alone undermines the argument for a "living breathing" Constitution. Why would the writers and signers of our Constitution provide a mechanism for changing the Constitution if it were a 'living-breathing" document? If they did not spell out a means for changing the Constitution as a "living-breathing" document, it is only logical that they did not mean for that means to exist or they would have written so. The reason that proponents of "a living breathing", maleable constitution, is much like a cheating at cards. If the cheater cannot win any other way, he changes the rules, stacks the deck, so he can win. A "living breathing" constitution is like not having a Constitution at all. If a man, or a small unelected group of men can change the Constitution at their own whims, then it has no meaning, it does not exist. The cheater says to us that "words do not mean what they mean; words mean what I say they mean. " Our founders specifically spelled out the powers and duties of the federal government. They clearly, concisely defined where the powers of the federal government begin and end. They spoke clearly about what powers were to held by the states. They did their best to protect individual rights, for they knew that only if we were a country of laws and not of men, only if we were a country that protected property rights, and religious rights would men be happy and free from strife and misery they had witnessed both abroad and in America. Man has disappointed man since the beginning of time. According to the founders, as prescribed in our Declaration of Independence, and reinforced in our Constitution, God, not government, not other men, but God created all men equal under the law. God, not government, not another man, was the grantor of rights and freedom. It was mankind's natural state to be free. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are the glues that bind Americans, black and white, red and yellow, male and female, rich and poor, together. Without them, there would be no America. America, because of the vision of our founding fathers, blessed us with the freeist, most prosperous nation the earth has ever seen. If we allow those who believe in a "living-breathing" Constitution to have their way, we the unwashed, will all be forced to stoop to eating peanuts. For he who believes that the Constitution is a "living-breathing" document, I hope the elephant in the living room does not mistake his head for a peanut.

Friday, October 07, 2005

It's All Bush's Fault!

It's all Bush's fault. The recent rise in gasoline prices are all Bush's fault. His father is an oil man. He is acquainted with oil people like V.P. Cheney. He is friends with Saudi oil barrons.

It's all Bush's fault. The handling of the hurricane relief was three or four days slow. Three or four days earlier action would have saved much heartache and pain of survivors who did not leave New Orleans.

It's all Bush's fault. The econony is the worst it has been in ages.

It's all Bush's fault. There was an invention of a carburator that would allow SUV's to get over 60 miles to the gallon. As a result of collusion between big oil and the auto industry it was taken off the market so we humans would have to purchase fuel at higher prices.

These are all statements made by people so blinded by their hatred of George Bush, that they do not want any facts to get in the way of their diatribes. Let's examine the facts.

What executive order, unknown and uncontested by Congress or the Courts, did Bush enact to cause oil prices to rise from Dollar Thirty a gallon to over three dollars a gallon? If there was no executive order, how by stealth, was he able to accomplish this? How did this act become policy under the radar of the attacking, ever vigilent press? Could it be that hurricane Katrina exposed to us Americans, flaws in the the way government does business? Could it be that forty years of allowing radical environmentalists and their lobbyists in collusion with the government to dictate energy policy helped cause the rise in gas prices? Factual Evidence shows not one refinery has been built in the United States since the seventies, in spite of the fact that the demand for gasoline consumption has been growing. Factual evidence reveals we Americans do not like gas sipping economy cars; we like cars that will keep our families safe, that will allow us to merge onto the interstate at sixty miles per hour. We like leather seats, whistles and bells. We have convinced ourselves that when it snows that one time per year here in the South, we need a four-wheel drive (with an extra thousand pounds of weight for drive train we must haul around the remaining 363 days of the year) . Could it be that we want one dollar gasoline, but yet we do not want oil rigs forty miles off the coast of North Carolina? Could it be that we want cheap electricity, but we do not want windmills obstructing our view of the sea in Massachusetts or of the desert in Arizona. We then try to explain the rising prices prices to George Bush and the "corporate greed" of the oil/energy industry. To exacerbate the problems, the radical environmentalist have convinced, no cowed our cowards in crime, Congress into forcing oil companies, while restricting refining capacity, to produce a bevy of blended gasolines for various markets in spite of the fact that cars have been become cleaner burning. In view of the fact that it takes time to switch production from one blended fuel to another, and that refineries are operating at near capacity, any natural event like an earthquake, hurricane or tornado can easily cause disruption of service and prices to rise. All we have to do is to cap prices and control the greed of the oil companies and their stockholders you say? We tried that several times before. During WWII Franklin Roosevelt and Congress placed price controls on everything including gasoline, to prevent "price gouging". Nixon in order to curb rampant inflation he had inherited from years of poor fiscal monetary policy, gave us Americans what we wanted, a stop to rising prices. What we wanted and received was cheap gas, but what we also received in both "price control" instances were gas shortages. As many of us remember, we burned much of the four or five gallons of gas we were able to purchase, standing in line to purchase the next four or five gallons of gas.
In addition to the radical environmentalists dictating portions of our enironmental policy, members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) have failed to produce a coherent environmental policy that would satisfy environmentalists and consumer's of energy desire to maintain or improve their lives. Government has pretty much been absent as far as coherent, workable energy policy. Radical environmentalists want us to return to the stone age, each of us returning to the natural state of stepping in and breathing fumes of horse and cow poop. Most Americans want their labor saving can openers, microwave ovens, and yes, the most highly treasured possession and status symbol their car. Members of Congress are:

1. afraid to stand up to the environmentalists
2. are unwilling to give up the money lobbyists throw at them to get them reelected.

Basically, government has been AWOL. Again, what things does government do well? Unfortunately, those who would do what is best for America rather than what is good for political careers, statesmen, died one hundred and eighty years ago.

Let's examine Bush's role in the Katrina aftermath. Government, state, local and federal do a very few things well. Responding to emergencies is not one of them. The mayor of New Orleans failed to implement any kind of plan to evacuate the poor, and uneducated, in spite of the fact he could have killed two birds with one stone; saved all of the school buses and public transit buses and in the process hauled many to safety. This was all Bush's fault? The chief of police and 1/3 of his officers left town, leaving the town open to preditors. This is all Bush's fault?The Governor of Louisiana, commander of the National Guard failed to call out the troops, once the storm was over, to stop marauders from looting and vandalizing. This was Bush's fault?Who went into hard hit areas first with relief? Caring individuals (has anyone heard of the most widely discriminated against group in America today-church people?) Volunteers from the Red Cross, Chruches, Salvation Army were there with water, food clothes, generators, while Congress, the President, the Governors, the Mayors the town coucils were still trying to figure out what to do and arguing about how to do it. I heard of owners of moving companies volunteering their drivers and trucks to haul food, and water to those in need. The did not ask if the victims were black, or white or red or yellow. They went. Thank God for loving, caring Americans. I love it when the private sector says "Get out of the way Govco, we will get things done and do so efficiently."

Let's examine the statement that Bush is to blame for the state of the economy. Was the inflation rate ever higher than three percent? Was the unemployment rate ever worse than six per cent? How about during the 1970's? How about during the 1960's? How about during the 1930's? Let's examine the facts. Here in North Carolina we have one of the higher unemployment rates in the South. It has been in the 5.7% range, which is not awful but it could be better. Why is North Carolina trailing many other Southern states? Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford had it pegged when asked to what do you attribute South Carolina's vibrant economy, he said (paraphrase) Thank God for North Carolina. Governor Easley and our state legislature have been increasing spending a billion dollars each year. We now have a record breaking (and as far as the taxpayer is concerned-backbreaking) 17 Billion Dollar Budget. To support the tax and spenders' addiction, they just passed a bill that approved a lottery. In additon we in N.C. pay 27.1 cents per gallon for gasoline in addition to the federal tax, making gasoline in N.C. among the very highest in the country. The sad thing is that our cowardly legislators, rather than having to vote each time to increase the gas tax, they pegged the tax rate to gas price. In a few months, unless the legislature changes the law, gas taxes and therefore gas prices will be on the march onward and upward. Trying to deflect criticism, the liberal Raleigh crowd are justifying this unreasonable tax rate by saying that we North Carolinians have a choice, either good roads or a tax cut. What they fail to tell us, is that highway money is used not just for highways, but is being used for light rail boondoggles in the Triangle area and in Charlotte. How about asking the correct question instead of the spinning one, "Taxpayers, do you want to spend millions upon millions on light rail that very few in the state of N.C. will ever ride, or do you want a tax cut?
To add insult to injury N.C. now has one of the hightest income tax rates in the country. Add the Seven-seven or seven and one half percent (depending upon the county one makes his purchase) sales tax burden to the consumer and now you have a serious drain on the citizens of North Carolina. The sales tax in N. C. has been inching up since the early eighties. It was four per cent when I first went into business in the eighties in NC. Yet that is not the the total story (or nightmare) for taxpayers. The legislature and "Tax Hike Mike" Easley abscounded monies that were earmarked under state law to be returned to local governments "to balance the budget" ie. to inject the tax narcotic into the veins of the tax and spend addicts. This in turn forced many local governments (controlled by either Republicans and Democrats) to increase property taxes and fees. If the the N.C. sales tax rate had been left alone, N. C. would still have more money as the prices of goods have risen over the last twenty five years. The sales tax has almost doubled. Taxes are stifling the N.C economy and our rulers, I mean governor and legislators, are oppressing us.
If we study our nation's history, can we find any examples of similar situations in America, where taxes become oppressive, and business either leave a state, or goes out of business, or new businesses refuse to come to that state? Does anyone remember the term "the rust belt." If you will recall, many businesses in the North left there because of onerous tax policies. Where did they move? Many of these businesses moved South, away from oppression. My wife worked for one of those companies who moved to Stanley N.C. from Buffalo N.Y. Did you know America's textile industry was once centered in the Northeast, while cotten was being raised in the South. Part of the reason the textile industry moved South was it proved more efficient to have the textile plants nearer the source of raw material, labor was cheaper, but as importantly, taxes were typically lower in the South. If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more prosperity, reduce taxes. If you want less prosperity, increase taxes. The members of the legislature and "Tax Hike Mike" need to take a course in basic economics. They could stand to read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. They have not figured out yet why NC is not faring as well economically as many other states. Easley' s claim to fame is that he "bribed" Dell Computer into coming to N.C. All of the other businesses and you and I as taxpayers in the state will be paying for the subsidies and special treatment Dell receives. How many employees will Dell have to hire to offset all of the employees lost as small businesses leaving N.C. to rid thesmselves of onerous taxes? How many employees will Dell have to hire to offset all of the employees not hired, as a result of small businesses that could have located in N.C. except for high income, gasoline, sales, and property taxes, drove them away? How many employees will Dell have to hire to offset the small businesses who are taxed out of existence? After all of the freebies and preferential treatments are over will Dell pack its P.C. and move on to another state? If I were a betting man, I'd say not. Once Michael Dell shows how many North Carolinians he can hire and the support/infrastructure that is built, just the threat of leaving will cause knashing of teeth, wailing and tears. I see the scenario of Michael Dell sqeezing and twisting the next Easley's nose for even greater concessions.

It is all the fault of Bush and his oil producing cronies that the rights to a carburator that would allow an SUV to get 60 miles per gallon. Believe it or not, a supposedly bright attorney made that statement to me (in fact he made all four statements about Bush to me). He said he knew someone who knew someone who had an SUV that was getting sixty mpg, he took it into the dealership for service. The dealership's employee told him he had the wrong carburator on the vehicle. The dealer changed it for free. When the vehicle was returned to the owner, it would only get fifteen m.p.g. This canard, this urban myth about the carburator that would allow cars to sixty miles to the gallon, I heard forty years ago, when I was sixteen. Did the automakers not realize they had squeezed all of the mpg from carburator technology and abandon it for fuel injection technology? Is there an SUV being made that uses a carburator instead of the more efficient fuel injection technology? If big corporate auto makers are as greedy as they are accused of being, if GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, or Nissan could develop a carburator that would improve gas mileage four hundred-fold and they could gain this great a competative advantage, do you not think they use it to try to gain all the market share they could over their competitors? Could they not sell SUV's at a premium price, therefore with higher profit margins than their competition? We all know if they could, they would.

What did these four claims blaming Bush made by my lawyer friend teach me? When one becomes a slave to the spin/talking points of a political party, an otherwise intelligent person's IQ drops to four points above that of a head of cabbage. Blinded by vitriol, that person could not see the Terex earth mover about to run them over.

Our founding fathers warned us of: government does most things poorly, government becomes intrusive in its citizens' lives, government naturally grows, and in doing so, it taxes its populace into slavery, government eventually loses its mission of dispensing justice. The founders warned us that political parties create dissension. The founders feared people discovering that they can vote themselves the largess from the treasury at the expense of their fellow citizens. Are not all of these evils coming to pass just as the warned us? Each of these expose themselves each time there is a disaster, natural or man-made. We must ask ourselves in light of government's inability to react to most crises, what should government's role in society be? Should it be creating rules and law to benefit lawyers and large corporations at the expense of the small entrepreneur? Should it be creating a welfare state that enlsaves the poor to a system rather than helping them lift themselves as our current welfare sytem does? Should it pay welfare benfefits to McDonald's to open markets overseas? or to farmers to not grow crops? or to sugar refiners to create artificially high prices on anything that contains sugar at the expense of the consumer? Should it be for government to take property from its citizenry and have it handed over to developers in the name of "urban development"? (See Kelo vs New London Supreme Court Decision) Is is up to the courts to legislate by perverting our Constitution? Or, should our governments' jobs be protecting us from each other, protecting our borders, protecting us from tyranny both domestic and abroad, protecting property rights, protecting religious freedom, and treating each citizen equally under the law.
It is difficult, if a citizen works for a living and tries to do an adequate job in taking care of his or her family, to stay abreast of all of the ways government are encroaching on our freedoms. Thank goodness there are organizations like the John Locke Foundation here in North Carolina, nationally the Cato Institute and the Hoover Institute. As Washington and other early leaders warned, we must be vigilent. Our founding fathers spelled out clearly in the Constitution and our Bill of Rights what the role of our government should be. Remember, the principles upon which our goverment was founded: all men were created equal, governments role is to protect us from outside invasion. Those in government, left to their own devices will grow government and increase taxes and squander the proceeds making all the citizenry poorer for it. The founders bequeathed us a republic with three branches to make it very difficult to enact law and to oppress American's taxpaying citizenry.
Although after reading this, you probably think I am a Bush fan. Although I did hold my nose and vote for him rather than "Farther than left than Teddy Kennedy" John Kerry, or even worse "I did not know that Communist Chinese agents could not make campaign contributions" and "I invented the internet" Al Gore, I did not vote for Bush in the primary. I believed then as now that he is far too liberal. I am not enamoured with either major party now. They have both become tax and spenders. The Socialist Democrat party has become a meal of beans and rice and the Republicans a meal of rice and beans. The end result of both meals is suffocating hot air. H. L Stephenson