Archive for November, 2010

Harry Reid’s Dream

November 30, 2010

 Sen. Harry Reid (D Nev.), Senate Majority Leader, has announced that he will be pushing for a test vote in the Senate for the so-called “DREAM ACT”. This is a bill that many see as little more than amnesty for illegal immigrants.

  Others see it as a pay back to the hispanic community that helped re-elect him to the Senate. Of course the Service Employees International Union is in favor of this legislation, since their ranks are filled by many illegals.

  The so-called “Dream Act” is a bill that would create a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants that came to the country before the age of sixteen. Estimates put the number of potential beneficiaries around 100,000.

  The act would require that the children would have to attend college or serve in the military.

  My first response to this is that if the parents are illegal then so are the children. Fruit of the poison tree. These children should not be moved to the front of the line just because their parents were able to successfully enter the country illegally. This is rewarding an illegal act. It sends a very bad message to those still trying to get in by legal methods. It says to them, don’t bother, just hire a coyote and sneak in. It is also an insult to all of the immigrants over the years that did come here legally.

 Let us also think about these two requirements in the dream act to obtain legal status. The first being that they attend college. Who will be paying for it? Will their hard-working parents? Maybe in some cases. But in many cases we will most likely be subsidizing these college careers through student loans and grants. So, we the American citizens, who work and pay taxes,who live our lives by the law of the land, will be paying to educate the children of illegal immigrants and in so doing, we will also be enabling them to become legal residents.

 This somehow seems again like rewarding illegal behavior.

  Now this second method of bestowing residency upon these illegal immigrant children, while on the surface may seem like a good thing, gives me pause. What are we risking if we allow the children of illegal immigrants to achieve legal residency by enlisting in our military?

 We may suddenly see the ranks of our military swelled. But what type of military will we then have? We will have a military filled with people whose only motivation for being in the military may be to gain citizenship, not to serve the nation. We may have a military that is no longer loyal to the United States of America.

  The problem is, that suddenly, we would have a large number of people entering the military with similar cultural backgrounds, that were not of this nation. We may find our military resembling that of  a South American nation, rather than that of the USA.

 These types of short cut paths to citizenship will never be acceptable to the majority of Americans. We will demand that the borders first be secured. Then we will deal with the illegals already here. We must start with the criminal element. When arrested, illegals must be deported. We must make it more and more costly for  employers to hire illegals. We should also punish unions that harbor illegals within their rank and file.

 The one thing we must not do, is  reward an illegal act. We must not bestow citizenship upon these people simply because they were able to sneak across our borders. We cannot allow politicians such as Harry Reid and Chris Coons to pay back their campaign donors, such as the SEIU, by pandering to the illegal immigrants.

  Protecting our sovereignty must be our number one priority. Allowing illegals to attain citizenship after breaking our laws only weakens our laws. This is a security issue as well as a fiscal issue. The burden these invaders have put upon our education, law enforcement, health care and job market is substantial.

 Our nation has been built with the blood sweat and tears of immigrants. Some of our greatest achievements have been due to the hard work and intelligence of our immigrant citizens. We owe many debts of gratitude to immigrants. But this does not mitigate the fact  that our nation is currently under attack from people who think that they have some God-given right to walk into this nation and to take on the mantle of citizenship. Some come wanting only a better life for themselves and their families. For these there is a legal path, take it. Some come here to earn money and then return to their home country. For these there are also legal ways to do this. For those who would come here only to commit crimes, well we have no need for you.

  Our first and greatest obligation is to the natural-born citizens of the United States of America, the end.

Advertisements

Giving Thanks

November 25, 2010

 I will make this short. Not something I am known for mind you.

 I would like to give thanks for all of God’s blessings. God has truly blessed me. I have a wife and daughter that are the center of my world. I have been able to provide for them a life that has been sometimes happy, but like everyone, sometimes trying. We enjoy the happy times and work together to get through the trying times. We pray that the trying times never have the effect of driving us apart.

  My life has had different stages. As a young man I was troubled and was easily led astray. As a young adult I met and married the calming influence in my life. It was truly a gift from God the day I married my wife. We were then blessed with a child that any parent would be proud of,  and we are, as we watch as she now grows into a young woman with goals of her own. Now as a mature man(some might say middle-aged) I have seen that it is important to look outside ones self. I have learned that we must be willing to give back that which we have received. I now attempt to do this.

  I am thankful for being born and growing old in what I believe to be the freest land in the world. The nation, like myself has had many stages. We have been young and idealistic. We have been strong, we have had trying times. Through all we have prayed that the trying times would not drive us apart. This has not always been true. But with God’s will we will survive.

  My Thanksgiving day prayer is that all people around the world will turn their eyes to God and allow them to be opened. Let us for at least one day put aside our political differences. Let us see the true meaning of giving thanks. Not for material things, but for those things that will lead us to a more meaningful existence. Some of the richest people this day may go without food, they may be living on the street. They may be wearing clothes that are years out of style. Their cars may be rusty, their homes in disrepair. But those who have God in their hearts are the rich among us.

 May God bless all people around this world that he created. My we find the happiness that his love can provide. May God bless all of you and your families, and may God keep you and your loved ones safe .

Chris Coons: I’m Not A Liberal

November 23, 2010
Monday, 22 Nov 2010 02:25 PM
  Liberal Democrats jumped for joy when Democrat Chris Coons won the Delaware Senate race this month, defeating Republican Christine O’Donnell. But they may want to cool it a bit – he’s not one of them, The Hill reports. In coons,not,liberal,odonnell,delawarean interview with the news service, he says his victory over tea-party-backed O’Donnell reflects the “reasonable, balanced, centrist” nature of Delaware voters.

During the campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid almost blew it for his fellow Democrat. In a September interview with The Hill, Reid lavished praise on Coons, twice calling him “my pet.” O’Donnell’s campaign made hay out of that.

As for Coons, “My gut reaction was that, I’m nobody’s ‘pet,’ and I’m somebody who’s dedicated to working tirelessly for Delaware and Delaware’s interests,” he says.

 
  I pulled this off of NEWSMAX.com .  Me thinks he dost protest too much!

Delaware Higher Than National Average

November 22, 2010

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/delaware.html

    But of course no one cares, right?

2008 Crime Rate for Delaware

The crime rate in Delaware is about 14% higher than the national average rate. Property crimes account for around 83.6% of the crime rate in Delaware which is 10% higher than the national rate. The remaining 19.2% are violent crimes and are about 35% higher than other states.

State Crime Rates (Per 100,000 People)

 
  Delaware National Avg.
Crime Rates (2008) 4,288 3,668
Violent Crimes 703 455
Property Crimes 3,585 3,213

 

  http://www.nicic.gov/Features/StateStats/?State=DE

  But of course no one cares, right ?

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse

  While the rate of any abuse of or dependence on alcohol or illicit drugs has generally remained at or below the national rates for all age groups and across all survey years, there are some differences. Rates of alcohol dependence have generally remained well below the national rate, particularly since the 2003-2004 survey, and rates of dependence or abuse on illicit drugs has generally remained above the national rate for all age groups and across all survey years.

Drug and Alcohol Rehab in Delaware

   But of course no one cares, right?

   http://covecenterforrecovery.com/Addiction-Treatment-Centers-Delaware.asp

   Let’s just keep focussing on those fiscal issues.
  

    Maybe if we save enough money by focussing on fiscal issues, we can all buy fiddles to play while Rome burns.

Ever Widening Circle

November 21, 2010

  There is a lot of discussion right now about the direction of the GOP. I happen to live in Delaware, where the discussion is about what the GOP should be.  Should it be a party that sees and represents itself as a fiscally conservative party only? Or should it be a party that holds true to conservative values and principles on all issues? Anyone following along knows my view on this. I feel that we actually welcome more people into the party by holding true to conservatism on all issues, instead of the narrow idea of fiscal conservatism only.

  In this post I want to address a phrase that has long bothered me. “BIG TENT”

  I first heard this phrase, big tent, used by the liberals within the Democrat party. Then like so many other things, the moderate leftist within the GOP tried to copy the Democrats. The moderate leftist of the GOP actually tried to convince people that they had a bigger tent than did the Democrats. Suddenly we were in a big tent arms race. Who has the bigger tent?

  Unfortunately, too many people within the GOP have a skewed idea of what a big tent means. The party wonks think it means to allow any and all to come into the tent, with no care for what ideology they bring with them. These people are only concerned with growing the number of registered Republicans. This actually harms the conservative movement. It creates a fracture within the GOP. When you have people who think that you can solve some issues by applying conservative principles, and other issues by applying liberal principles,and that some issues should be ignored completely, then you will fracture the party. This is what we have been seeing here in Delaware for some time now.

 This is the way I see the big tent working. The big tent itself represents the party, in this case the GOP. The tent grows as does the party, by adding people. But what draws people into the tent? Candidates. So the first person into the tent must be the candidate.

  When the candidates come into the tent they naturally bring with them people who already agree with them. The candidate stands at the center of the tent and is then surrounded by those who already agree with them.To be heard the candidate must stand on a box, inside the box are the issues that candidate feels are important.Now as the sight of the big tent draws more people to come over and see what is happening inside,more people will come into the tent.These  people represent other issues not in the box. But they are further from the center and the candidate. As the candidate articulates their view of the issues within their box, the people at the center hear clearly what is being said and will agree, since they helped put up the tent. But to reach the people at the back of the tent who came in later, the candidate must shout to be heard. Somethings may not reach or be understood by those further from the center. Why? Because the issue in the box upon which that candidate is standing on, does not have meaning for them. When the people on the outer edges of the crowd can’t hear or be heard by the candidate, then they will leave the tent. If on the other hand they force their way to the center by bringing more and more people into the tent that feel as they do, so as to place their issue in the box at the center of the tent, then they will force the original center of the tent outward and possibly out of the tent. They will knock the candidate off of their box and spill those issues to the ground.

  It is this constant pushing and shoving for the center that creates the fractures within the poles holding up the tent. Those poles represent the principles of conservatism.

  I would rather that the GOP see itself as an ever-widening circle.

  Again in the center of this circle will be the candidate. But instead of standing on a box to be heard, that represents issues, the candidate will stand on a box that represents conservative principles. The people who come to form the circle around the candidate will represent the issues. They will join hands to create an ever-widening circle in which each issue is an equal distance from the center.  No one issue will be given a special place closer to the candidate.

 The candidate in the center can merely turn from one issue to another while standing on the principles and address each, based on those principles. No one has to shove anyone to be heard. From atop their box of conservative principles the candidate has a clear view of the issues. Unlike in the big tent, where the candidates may lose sight of the issues at the back of the tent, because they are standing on a single issue.

  By standing on principles instead of standing on issues, the candidate is able to apply the principles of conservatism to all issues. And if a candidate truly believes in the principles of conservatism then this should not be a problem.

 The idea of the circle also allows people or issues if you will, to step into the circle and hold hands with people who may not share their concern for every issue within the circle, but who do believe that the application of the conservative principles within the box can solve their particular issue. This allows people who would normally be outside the GOP circle to step in and work with the GOP. And to step out when it suits them. This coming and going is minimized by the fact that conservatism when applied, is our best chance of solving issues. But unlike the pushing and shoving for the center of the big tent, to place your issue at the center, that fractures the poles, when someone or some issue leaves the circle, the people merely join hands to fill that spot. And in so doing retain the strength of the circle. Because the true strength of the circle is in the center of the circle inside the box that all GOP candidates should be standing on, conservative principles.

Delaware GOP, Same Old Mistakes!

November 18, 2010

   The New Castle GOP Committee has “SELECTED” former state Representative Tom Kovak to run in the special election to be the next New Castle County Council president. Mr. Kovak has just come off the loss of his state Representative seat in the recent election.

  Many in the party see this as just another Delaware GOP backroom deal. They see his selection as just another in a long line of bad choices. The more conservative faction within the GOP see Mr. Kovak as a clone of defeated U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who was defeated in the recent GOP primary by the conservative Christine O’Donnell.

  Even after the recent loss of Michele Rollins and Mike Castle in the GOP primary, both were the GOP endorsed candidates, the NCC GOP Committee chooses another left leaning “MODERATE”. Moderate has become code speak for someone the GOP hopes will appeal to Democrat voters. In the press release Mr. Kovak is described as a “FISCAL CONSERVATIVE”, this is code speak for moderate and someone who the GOP hopes will appeal to Democrats.

  Unfortunately for the Delaware GOP and the Republican voters, the GOP never cares to appeal to GOP voters. The GOP just expects us to stand in line and do as we are told by the establishment. Not going to happen!

  It would seem that the same party establishment that had their candidates defeated in the GOP primary have learned nothing. They have again chosen a party insider and someone who will surely alienate the more conservative faction within the GOP, and will leave them home. Some from the NCC GOP have asked for help from the lower counties. I wouldn’t hold my breath. Conservative voters who hold to their principles will not ride to New Castle to support someone who most likely doesn’t share them.

  Again the state GOP and its county committees have missed the message of the recent election cycle. They think because the two conservatives at the top of the ticket lost, that this means that we should return to their losing ways of selecting moderate candidates. I will admit that Delaware in general got it wrong this election. If you look around the country conservatives candidates did very well, but in Delaware, not so much. Is this because conservatives can’t win in Delaware? I don’t think so. I feel that the problem was that the GOP establishment was not behind these two candidates with full force and commitment. So no change at the top of the party, no change in the type of candidates they choose.

  Until the GOP establishment and leadership understands that they need the more conservative faction within the party, until they address the issues that effect all citizens across party lines, until they get it, that conservatism is not just about fiscal issues, then they are doomed to fail.

 Let me try again to give an example of how I believe that the GOP should and can reach out to historically Democrat voters.

“As a fiscal conservative with a proven record of fighting excessive government spending and higher taxes, Tom knows how to hold government accountable. Tom’s candidacy will offer voters a clear and unmistakable choice between someone who will challenge the tired status quo that has led to conflicts of interest, shortsighted planning, higher taxes and a systemic budget deficit, and the forces that have been part of the problem.”

 That was from the press release announcing Mr. Kovak’s selection. Please tell me what in that description will appeal to a struggling single mother. Tell me what in that will appeal to a family living in one of Wilmington’s poorer neighborhoods, who worries about their children’s safety as they walk to school? What in that addresses the drug problem in the county? Does the NCC GOP Committee really think that the people of NCC who are living in the poorest areas of the county care about , “a systemic budget deficit” ? Who is the GOP attempting to reach with this short-sighted message? Are they trying to reach out to rank and file Democrats and Republicans? Or just people who write checks?

  We can never win in Delaware until we reach out to all  people as citizens. We can never win using this narrow message of so-called fiscal conservatism. We can never win by compromising on core values and principles. A single mother in New Castle who is struggling to keep her son off of drugs, and trying to make sure that her daughter has an education before she has a baby, cares nothing about “a systemic budget deficit”.

Flexible Spending Accounts

November 16, 2010

   Anyone out there have a flexible spending account through their employer? This is an account that an employee can save pre-tax dollars from their wages into, to be used for unforeseen medical emergencies that their health insurance doesn’t cover. The money can also be used to purchase over the counter drugs like ibuprofen and hay fever medicine. The money can also be used to pay co-pays and deductibles.

  Well the money can at least for now be used for these things. Starting next year you’ll need a prescription to use the money from the FSA’s for over the counter drugs. This is part of the new health care law, otherwise known as Obama care.

 Let me reiterate, this is your money. It is an account that lets you set aside money through your employer. Granted one thing that I have never cared for with these types of accounts is the fact that, if the money is not used within the year, you lose it. I think their should have been a maximum amount to be held and allowed to roll over, and if used, again be allowed to contribute up to the maximum.  The fact that the accounts have been, a use it or lose it game has led people to stock up at the end of the year on the over the counter drugs that they use on a regular basis. It is unclear whether they will be eligible  for reimbursement under the new law if they attempt this next year.

 Another change that is coming in 2013 effecting the FSA’s will be a cap on the maximum amount that an employee can set aside. It will be lowered to $2,500, while most employers currently allow a $5,000 maximum.

 These two changes are clearly intended to take control away from the individual as how to spend their own money and also a restriction on the individuals decision-making process. No longer can a person decide that all they need is ibuprofen for their arthritis, they must first see a doctor to get a prescription. They can no longer set aside money to be used as they see fit. No, now the government will restrict the amount and how it is to be used.

 This is exactly the type of government intrusion that many conservatives saw coming from the Obama care agenda. We spoke of government getting between you and your doctor. These changes to the FSA’s is just the first step on a path of moving you from private coverage, to having no choice but a government plan.

 The money in the account is yours, but you can’t use it as you see fit. It is your body that you want to put the over the counter drugs into, but you can’t unless you pay the doctor first. These are what should be personal choices, but the Obama administration and the Democrats think they know better than you do how best to spend your money and what is best for your health care needs.

 I feel this is but the leading edge of some very draconian regulations that are headed our way. The whole point of Obama care is to drive every citizen into national health care coverage. They will do this through these types of regulations on what has been a private system. By restricting the amount of money a private citizen can put aside and also restricting how it can be used, the government will effectively drive people away from using these private accounts. I would not be surprised in the future to find out that the new health care law allows the government to actually takeover the accounts and use the money as a national health care account.

 I would suggest that if you have one of these FSA, that you use up all of the money in them this year and then opt out. Put the money in the bank in a high interest savings account, or put it in mason jars in the back yard. You will lose the pre tax exemption, but you will still have the ability to use the money as you see fit. At least for now.

 People, we are in for some very tough times. As this leftist leaning government continues to attempt to force us into a socialist society through enticements, such as extended un-employment and welfare. Through a national health care system and any number of other government-run and funded programs, as the government continues to rob us through the tax system to pay for these unneeded programs, the government will become more and more desperate to force those who wish not to participate, to be bullied into participation.

 We could be looking in the near future at having our 401Ks taken over and distributed to people around the nation to bolster social security. Once the step of taking over these FSA, private money mind you, has been taken, how far-fetched is it to think that the government would and will begin taking private property of all kinds to prop up a socialist agenda that can’t sustain itself?

 This is why this past election was so important. We here in Delaware got it wrong. But we have the up-coming election in 2012 to make it right. We must work here in Delaware to remove Senator Tom Carper and  Pres. Obama and newly elected Rep. Carney from office. We must work on the local level to elect people who understand that it is the rights of the individual that must be protected, if we are to protect the rights of the many.

Is The Party Over?

November 14, 2010

  In the early days of the founding of this nation there were no political parties. Many of our Founding Fathers believed them to be dangerous to the Republic and warned against organizing them.

  After watching what has been going on in this nation and my home state of Delaware recently, I’d have to say I can see their point perfectly. Party politics has degenerated into little more than street gangs. We watch as they vie for control of imaginary turf. They use any and all tactics to defeat their opponents. And if a member is thought to be an outsider, then they are brutalized.

  Within the parties the fight for control can be just as nasty, if not worse. We are witnessing such a battle right here in Delaware for control of the GOP state committee chairmanship.

  With all of the in-fighting among the party members, what can be the future of not only the GOP, but the political party system in general? Can a system that is based on maligning those who you oppose and even those whom you should be working with, survive?

 Let’s look at the current trend within the GOP. I choose the GOP for obvious reasons. First I am a member of this street gang and because we are currently the party fighting to regain power, we are the party in the most upheaval.

  We are seeing a trend in the GOP of a more conservative movement on the part of the rank and file, while at the same time we are seeing the current party establishment trying desperately to retain their hold on power. Think of it as two of the earth’s plates pushing against each other. So what is happening is, that as the GOP establishment pushes back against the rank and file we have disunity within the party.

 This pushing and pulling can have a positive effect, by rebuilding the party in the image of the voters. If the party does not reflect the will of the voters, then the voters will not support the party, simple as that. Now when I say they will not support the party I do not mean just at the ballot box, they will not support the party financially either. We are already seeing a trend in campaign donations. Donations in general are down by the average citizens, this can be explained by the economy to a degree. Also donations to the party are down, again the economy may have something to do with this. I happen to believe that more people are like myself donating directly to the candidates that they support. Or they are contributing to organizations such as the TEA Party Express and allowing them to funnel the money to candidates. Either way the GOP is losing the one thing that has allowed them to control the outcome of internal fights for so long, control of the purse strings.

  Couple this with the move of many voters changing their affiliation to independent and we could be on the leading edge of the GOP’s final decline.  The Democrats may not be currently in quite the same shape due to the fact that their party is still in a position of power to a larger degree. But the same can and will happen if they continue to ignore the will of their voters. I use the pushing through of Obama care as an example. 70% of Americans opposed it, you would have to think a large number of those were Democrats.

  So what purpose does a political party serve? Well those who have long been in the organization will tell you that you can’t get elected without the party organization. Is this because individual candidates can’t reach out on their own to the citizens, or is it because the political parties have stacked the deck against rogue candidates? I believe the latter is true. The leadership within the parties, so as to hold onto their power, manipulate the system by holding back endorsements and money from candidates that they see as a threat to that power. They have been more interested in holding their personal power within the party, than they have been with the good of the state or the nation. 

  This is exactly the behavior that is leading to people not donating to the party, and what lead, here in Delaware, to the two-party endorsed candidates for national office being voted out in the GOP primary. It is this disconnect of party leadership that will be their downfall. The question then is, will it also be the downfall of the GOP locally and maybe nationally?

  So, is the party over? I don’t believe it has to be. I believe the Delaware GOP can be resurrected. I believe it can be the organizational arm of the conservative movement. But to do so it must be staffed in leadership positions with people who will recognize and respect the will of the rank and file. It will require that more people get involved at the grassroots level and to bring more and more like-minded people into the party. It will require people to become involved as much as their live will allow, by showing up at local party meetings. By talking to their neighbors and friends. And by not standing by when party leadership steps out of line. Party unity is a two-way street. If the leadership expects the rank and file voters to be loyal to the party, then the leadership must be loyal to the will of the voters.

 We must never lose sight of the fact that the real leadership within a party is and must be the voters, for without them the party is nothing.

What Went Wrong? And Where Do We Go From Here?

November 10, 2010

  It has been a week since the elections here in Delaware. For the most part the GOP had its hat handed to it. We fared better down here in Sussex County then we did state-wide.  I have for the most part stayed out of the back and forth over why. I have heard the expected blame game of what went wrong.

 I have heard that it was this candidate’s fault or that leader’s fault. I have listened while fellow Republicans have blamed each other for not doing enough. And maybe there is a grain of truth in all of these assessments.

 The question we must ask ourselves as Republicans is how do we move forward from here. I happen to believe that even though we lost some offices as Republicans, we made gains as conservatives. We motivated the conservative base of the party to get involved. That is a good thing.

  Many people are talking about “how” we are going to move the party. I feel that first we must decide “where”  we are moving it to. What are the goals of those, like myself, that feel that a change is way over due. Do we want change just for change sake? Do we want change just to settle old scores within the party? Or do we want change to better the party, so as to create a strong party that can actually represent the will of the voters?

  Our goals also should include more than just winning elections. This has too often been our only goal, and it leaves the party without an ideological direction. I believe that ideological direction should be a straight line conservative movement. Those who have followed my writing know that I hold to the belief that straight line conservatism will actually bring more people to the GOP.

  So what is “straight line conservatism” ? In my view it is a three-legged stool. Those three legs represent what I believe are the three building blocks of conservatism and a strong society. You have fiscal conservatism, you have the conservative values and principles that hold to the Founding documents(Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), and you have a conservative view of how to handle social issues. These are the three legs of the stool. Remove any one of the three and the stool falls over.

  I think that this is why the GOP in Delaware has been on a road to failure for too long.  We have been told that in Delaware you can’t be elected if you talk about conservative social issues. Why? I’ll get to that later. Right now let’s look at the last election, and of course we will naturally have to talk about the two top of the ticket races. Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart. These two races are held up as being the agenda setting races for the down ticket races. Most people know that these two candidates are strong Christian candidates. Most know that they hold their faith close to their hearts. Most voters who supported these two candidates knew where they stood on the social issues. But what are the social issues?

  This is where I think we lose the message war. In this cycle our candidates carried the fiscal conservative banner high and proud. We heard about taxes and spending and waste. Our candidates talked about the constitution and about how we must adhere to our founding principles. But no one ever really put the third leg on the stool, social issues.

 Now when I say social issues, all of the moderates and liberals immediately start thinking abortion and gay marriage. The liberals will start screaming women’s right to choose and equal rights for homosexuals to marry. And we as conservatives have tended to become defensive and get down in the weeds with them. But in my mind social issues encompass much more than those two provocative issues.

 When we talk about social issues we must include issues that affect families. We have single mothers raising children, some with the help of their families but all too often with the help of the government. Many of these single mothers are a result of unwanted teenage pregnancy. These teen pregnancies also too often end in abortions. Social issues include crime and drug use, alcohol abuse,which can and do lead to the unwanted teen age pregnancies. Social issues include the conditions of the schools and the fact that many of the poorest among us are trapped in the worst schools because they can’t afford private schools. When we talk about social issues we must understand that this term includes anything that affect society.

  We must understand that the three legs of the stool are not separate. They must work together and if one is weak, then the other two will buckle under the strain. Let us look at what is almost always considered a fiscal issue, jobs and unemployment. I believe that unemployment is the number one social issue. Why? Because it has the greatest effect on our society. If people are unemployed then they will make desperate choices. Some will turn to government for support, short-term this is not a bad thing. But when it becomes a way of life being handed down through generations, it becomes a drain on the society. Some may turn to crime. This may include stealing, and also assault. People who are unemployed may turn to drugs and alcohol, again leading to bad choices in their lives that may lead to more bad choices. Let us not forget that financial pressure often is the leading cause of divorce, so once again unemployment can be the cause of creating broken homes. This in turn creates more women and children who may be forced to turn to government for help.

  So from a fiscal conservative point of view, it is right to work to help put people back to work, or to get them working for the first time. It is also right to do this from a social conservative point of view, to reduce the amount of crimes, drug use and bad choices and broken homes.

  As for the other leg of the stool, those all too important Founding values and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, well that is where we must look to for guidance in how to solve our problems. Those documents are our road map to individual Liberty. That Liberty is what allows us to achieve all that we are willing to work for. Those values and those principles that are encapsulated in those documents have been what has made this the greatest and freest nation in the world, it is only when we stray from them that we falter as a nation and a society.

 So, how do we use this three-legged stool to move the Delaware GOP forward? I feel that we must give equal time and value to all three legs. I feel that in this last election we gave great amounts of time to spreading our message of fiscal conservatism and our belief in our Founding principles. But we gave little or no effort to spreading a message of social conservatism as I have spelled it out. I believe we left a lot of people home who may have been motivated to come out had we been better messengers.

 Much has been said about getting out the vote and the ground game. Well one would have to think that 80% or more of getting out the vote is about the message and the messenger. We know that we failed to win over voters in New Castle County. That county has many of our poorest neighborhoods, our highest crime rates. Drug use is so bad in Wilmington that we have a needle exchange program there. We have large minority communities in New Castle County. These communities suffer under some of the highest rates for drug use and alcohol abuse. Teen pregnancies, abortions, single mothers, broken homes and unemployment. Their schools are some of the most dangerous and poorest achieving within the state and yet the Democrats argue against school vouchers to protect the teachers unions.

  These are the issues that I believe can bridge the gap between what has been historically separate worlds when it comes to elections. But we within the GOP of Delaware must have the courage of our convictions and be willing to take this message to communities that in the past we may have written off as being unchangeable. I happen to think that in these communities there are parents that want their children to grow up in homes with two parents. That they want their daughters to have educations before they have children. I don’t think any woman “wants” an abortion. These citizens want schools that are safe and that actually teach, and not just warehouse their children. They want to be able to sit on their front steps without being afraid of gun fire or being robbed. They want in New Castle County, that which all Delawareans want, what all citizens of the United States want, they want freedom and dignity.

  I personally intend to work to spread this message, I believe it should be our goal as a party, but more importantly, it should be our goal as a society.

Sussex County GOP Meeting (Or The Shot Heard Around Delaware)

November 9, 2010

  Well I went to the monthly Sussex County GOP meeting tonight. I have been going now for a little over a year. Tonight was different.

  What should have been a post-election celebration for those GOP candidates who won, like Cindy Green (Register of Wills) and Scott Daley( Recorder of Deeds), or maybe just a coming together for those who were unsuccessful such as Glen Urquhart and Christine O’Donnell.

 Instead it ended up being a defining moment. One that may have lasting effects on the state GOP.

  Sussex County GOP committeeman Don Ayotte put forth a resolution to censure state committee chairman Tom Ross. The complete resolution was as follows:

    ” Mr. Chairman,

         I make a motion to censure State GOP Chairman, Tom Ross for making inappropriate statements and failing to immediately endorse and fully support a lawfully elected republican candidate for the US Senate. Inappropriate statements include, ” she couldn’t be elected dog catcher,” when speaking about US Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell. Tom Ross fails to represent the will of the rank and file republicans in Delaware.”

    The ensuing, debate was lively at times and passionate. There were those in the meeting that were in favor of the censure motion and those who felt it was ill-timed.

  For my part, I felt the motion was too narrow in identifying Mr. Ross’ statements about Ms. O’Donnell. I felt that a motion to voice a vote of no confidence would have been more appropriate. To state that the rank and file GOP voters no longer feel confident that Mr. Ross understands, respects or is likely to represent the will of the Delaware GOP voters as Committee Chairman.

  Much of the discussion was about whether or not the committee could vote on the resolution and whether or not they had a quorum. The discussion went back and forth and finally a vote was taken of the room. Of the over one hundred people in attendance I would say 95% were in favor of the censure motion.

  I have to say that I don’t feel that much will come from the motion directly. But what it should do is to serve as notice to Mr. Ross and the state committee that they are short timers.

  Some may see this as division among the GOP. I see it as a coming together of conservatives.

 And in closing let me point out one thing that did happen, that gives me pause. Among the Tom Ross apologist in the room there was one woman who was very vocal. She was also taping the meeting with a digital camera. Let me say as an O’Donnell supporter who witnessed this tracker style of intimidation. A tactic used by the Castle campaign and the Coons campaign.  A tactic reminiscent of “Big Brother”. I find it despicable, that this so-called Republican would use these strong-arm tactics against fellow members of the GOP. And while I know her name oh so well I won’t release it here, but I can guarantee that I will tell every Republican that I speak with, the type of tactics that those who support Tom Ross as State Committee Chairman are willing to use.