Archive for May, 2011

Memorial Day 2011

May 29, 2011

   I have to admit, that when I begin to write these post for Memorial Day, I worry about them sounding cliché or trite.

   Some may ask, how many times and in how many ways can we express our un-dying appreciation for all that has been done by those who have given the last measure of devotion to this nation and all that it represents.

  Well first I would say that we can never express our debt enough,to those who have put on a uniform to stand a watch while we slept safely in our homes. To those who guarded our Liberty and our rights to speak our mind about every thing that came to mind.

  To the men and women through the history of this nation, who sacrificed what might be called a normal life, so that we could raise our children and build our homes. So that we could shop at the mall and go out to dinner. These are the Americans who starved during the winter at Valley Forge. These are the Americans who fought to maintain our independence from the British in the War of 1812. The thousands of Americans who died for an idea and the thousands more who died to retain the Union in our war with ourselves. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who gave their lives in the fields of France in WW I and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who gave their lives around the world in WW II, all to protect Liberty and the world from the evil that exist.  The men and women who went half way around the world to protect democracy from communism in Korea and Vietnam. To all who fought and died in the middle east. To all that are fighting and dying still. We owe all that we are. All that we have been. And all that we will be.

  What has made our military the greatest and strongest in the world? The same thing that has made us the greatest and freest nation in the world. Our Liberty. Our principles. The very things we have so often fought to protect, are the very things that have made it possible to triumph over our enemies.

  And while we remember the men and women who have fought and died around the world in un-named fields and deserts to protect those principles and our Liberty, let us not forget those at home who are now on the front lines of the war on terror. Now that the war has been brought home. Now that our enemies would destroy us right here within the very borders of the nation that has been the beacon of freedom for the world. Our first responders, our police officers and firemen, paramedics, have been thrust into the role of defenders. As we saw on 9/11, these Americans have the courage to run toward disaster. Even now as we take for granted the firemen who shows up to fight the fire  in our homes or to pull our child from the wreckage of our car on the highway. The police officer who investigates the noise we heard in the middle of the night. The officers who risk their lives every time they stop a speeder. Let us remember the fallen among these heroes also on this day of remembrance.

  Let us take the time out of our cookouts and other family activities to say a prayer for those who are not able to be with their families this weekend. And to give thanks for all that they have done for us. May God bless them, and may God bless the United States of America.


Unity !

May 24, 2011

  There has been a lot of talk lately within the GOP about the need for unity. This is true nationwide, it is true here in Delaware, and it is true here in Sussex County.

  But what do those calling for unity really mean by that? Some might say that unity will require that some submit their views and desires to those of others. That for there to be unity within the GOP, that some will need to compromise on issues that they feel strongly about. All in the name of unity and the good of the party.

  We need only look to Mitch Daniels, who recently announced that he would not seek the GOP nomination for president. He had stated that for there to by a united GOP, that those who believe that social issues are as important as fiscal issues, should call a truce. In other words Mr. Daniels felt that one part of the party should sacrifice their fundamental beliefs for the good of the party.

  Here in Delaware there are some within the GOP that have taken offense to the use of the word RINO, or “Republican In Name Only”. They say that the use of this term will only further divide the GOP. They have a point of course. I am sure that those who are described this way do not care for it. Most likely because it hits a little too close to the truth for them.

  As we move closer and closer to the election, we will have to decide just what is a Republican. Now of course each person will think they have the answer. And as always, I think I have the answer. And as always many of you are not going to like it.

  First let me say that I feel that the party is made up of three portions. First you have the rank and file voters. The people who donate the money, that support the candidates and who the party is honor bound to represent.

  Then you have the party itself. The local committees, the state committees and the national committee. The party’s job is not to tell the rank and file who to vote for. The party’s job is to reflect the wishes of the voters. To get a feel for the mood of the people and then work to find candidates that best represent that mood.

 Then you have the candidates. These are the brave souls who are willing to stand up and suffer the slings and arrows of the media and the opposition party and from their own rank and file many times. The candidates must always remember that their job is to work for and represent those who elected them. They must be people of honor. They must be people of integrity. They must clearly articulate their values and principles during the campaign. But more importantly, they must hold true to those values and principles once elected.

  We often talk about the “BIG TENT”, and who is and isn’t welcome within the GOP. Personally I feel that anyone who holds to conservative values and principles are welcome. Of course there are slight differences and priorities for many people.

 We have some within the party who are only concerned with fiscal issues. We have others who feel that we need to pay more attention to the social issues. And then there are people like myself that believe that we need only apply conservative principles to all issues to work towards solving them.

 Because I am someone who feels deeply about social issues such as abortion, I have been accused of having a litmus test for candidates. Well of course I do. I am a voter. I have ideals for those whom I would cast my vote. The same as a fiscal only member of the GOP would have a hard time voting for a candidate that was anti-abortion, but who believed that tax and spend was the way to solve our economic troubles. We as voters are always looking for that perfect candidate. It is important that we demand that perfection, so as to get the best candidates.

  So what will bring unity to the GOP? Conservative candidates. Within the rank and file we will always have diversity. This is a good thing. We will have people whose focus will be on fiscal matters. We will have people driven by social issues. We will have people who believe that all issues are of equal importance. This diversity is what will allow us to grow as a party. But we cannot compromise our principles for the sake of diversity.

  This diversity must be reflected within the party machine. The committees at all levels must reflect the attitude of all of its rank and file. For the party to lose sight of this, means the end of the party. Because if the rank and file feel that the party is ignoring their will, then the rank and file will abandon the party.

  So. Again, what will unite the differing factions of the GOP? Conservative candidates. We must demand that our candidates represent all factions of the rank and file. We must resist the temptation to narrow the definition of conservatism. We must have the courage to broaden the definition.

 Our candidates must have the courage of their convictions. They must be willing to dare  speak the will of the people. They must believe in the ability of conservative principles to solve our most pressing issues. Be they fiscal or social. We can no longer afford candidates that play to one faction of the party while taking another for granted. We must have candidates that will speak to all factions of the party. A candidate that will fight as hard for fiscal reform as  they will for the life of an unborn child.

  But if we can find these types of candidates, then we as a party must support them. We must stop listening to the media tell us who can or can’t get elected. We must stop listening as the Democrats tell us which candidate is best to run against them. We must understand that a straight line conservative candidate will appeal to the broadest group of people on all issues. They will appeal to independents and conservative Democrat voters as well.

 So while I don’t feel that there should be a litmus test for members of the rank and file. I do believe that there definitely should be one for candidates. And that test should be whether they can articulate conservative solutions to all issues.

  And the best way to stop the use of the word RINO, is to stop nominating them!

Election Year Pandering

May 18, 2011

   Well here in Delaware we can tell that the election year has started. How? You might ask. Well because here in Delaware our politicians believe that they can screw us during their entire term, and then come back during the election year and wave some shiny object, in the form of some fluff legislation, in front of our eyes and all will be forgotten.

  Unfortunately this has been the case far too often. Here in Delaware an old favorite has always been sand. Yes that’s right, sand. It never fails that as we near an election, one or all of our Washington political leaders will show up in Delaware and start telling us how hard they have worked to get federal funding to replenish the sand on the local beaches.

  This year Sen. Carper has come up with a new one. No sand for Sen. Carper. Nope. This year Sen. Carper is pushing for the establishment of a National Park in Delaware. It seems that Sen. Carper has been having trouble sleeping ever since he discovered that Delaware is the only state that has no National Park. I know that I have felt nothing but shame and disgust knowing this.

  Sen. Carper is telling us that we must have this National Park so that we can draw more tourist to the state. Wow! Obviously the senator has never been to the beaches in August.

  The Senator feels that establishing three separate locations, one in each county of the state, will somehow lure more people to the state. And I thought that the expansion of gambling had taken care of that.

  Let’s face it, Delaware is never going to be a bigger tourist attraction then it already is for its beaches and the two NASCAR races in Dover each year. Does Sen. Carper expect us to believe that by designating a few historic homes as National Parks, that suddenly people in North Dakota will come streaming to Delaware. Please!

 This is nothing more than, more election year pandering. Sen. Carper is hoping to come back to the state for some photo ops at these locations. Or maybe even getting his name on one of these so-called National Parks.

  The Senator is hoping that by creating these National Parks, that he can distract the citizens of Delaware from the real issues. You know, the high price of gasoline. The high cost of food. The rate of unemployment. The struggling economy. But most of all, the Senator wants to distract the citizens from his part in creating higher gas prices, higher cost for food, high unemployment and the struggling economy. He would also most likely want the people to either forget or never know the fact that he has voted with the views of Pres. Obama over 95% of the time.

  Maybe instead of wasting time talking about National Parks, maybe just maybe the Senator should be addressing these problems. Because creating National Parks within Delaware will do nothing to lower gas prices or to lower food cost. It will have no real effect even on unemployment here in Delaware and I feel that it will have no real effect on the national or state economy.

  We can only hope that the voters here in Delaware will recognize this for exactly what it is.Election year pandering in the worst way.

An Easy Choice

May 17, 2011

   Down here in Sussex County, Delaware, we are going through a process within the county GOP committee.

  We have been working on redirecting the committee and the party back towards the right. Now there are some who would tell you that those who were in charge in the past should not be included in this process. I am not one of those people.

  Look, for years now, I have been complaining about the party leadership ignoring the will of a large number of the party rank and file. I have felt that the leadership had no respect for the more conservative base of the GOP. We were expected to show up on election day and vote for whom ever the party had endorsed.

  That all changed last year in the GOP primary. The people rejected the party selected candidates.

  Now here in Sussex County the people are attempting to keep that from happening again. We are attempting to put the people first. To avoid the sort of division that has been the mainstay of the GOP in the past. The intention is not to shove anyone aside, but to bridge the divide that has been created by leadership more interested in personal power and glory, than they were with the good of the party, the state or the nation.

  This is why we have taken the steps in Sussex County that have been taken.

  On June 13th, we will be electing a new committee. As a side note I have put my own name on the list to be considered for the position of Election District Committee person. I have taken my time over the years and become more involved as time has passed. I hope that this has been a learning and a maturing process. I will now take the next step and get my feet wet. That is, if there are enough people who agree with me to elect me to that position.

  More importantly the committee will be electing people for the Chairman and Vice Chairman positions. Glen Urquhart has announced his intention to seek the chairman position. As of now he is the only person I am aware of seeking that seat.

  For the vice chairman’s seat we have two people who have indicated that they would be considered.  They are Eric Bodenweiser and John Reilly.

  Both of these men are well-known in Sussex and around the state within the GOP. Both men are dedicated members of the GOP. They have both been involved in campaigns for other people and have given freely of their time.

 Both John and Eric bring something to the table and both would be good for the GOP in the position of county vice chairman.

  Eric Bodenweiser has run for office himself. He ran a very close primary race against a popular Republican candidate. So Eric knows what is involved in running campaigns. He knows the sacrifice needed, if we are going to gain control away from the Democrats. Eric is one of the most motivated individuals I have ever met. He is energetic and is driven by a desire to be a part of the future within the GOP.

  John Reilly has held the position of county vice chairman in the past, so he know the job and brings experience to the table. John also has worked on campaigns and knows the ins and outs. John brings a certain calmness to any room he enters. He is steady and level-headed. Some may say that to elect John to the position would be a step backwards since he has held the position before. I got to know John fairly well last year. In my opinion John is forward-looking when it comes to the GOP and the direction we need to be moving in.

  Both John and Eric are rock-ribbed conservatives. They understand that to dissect the idea of conservatism is to weaken it. That to define oneself as this or that kind of conservative is to fracture the idea and the party.

  Now according to the rules, I and other rank and file voters will have no say in voting for this position. And because both men are excellent choices, one might think that this would be a difficult choice.

 But I say that this is actually an easy choice. Because no matter who the committee votes for, they will have gotten it right.

  Lastly I would like to mention another hard-working member of the GOP. Her name is Lynn Brannon and she is seeking the position of Treasurer of the Sussex County GOP Committee. I also got to know Lynn last year. She is a devoted Republican and has some good ideas how to make the office of treasurer more transparent and accessible to the rank and file. Lynn would also be an excellent addition to the committee.

It’s Official

May 16, 2011

  Donald Trump has announced that he will not be a candidate for president. He stated in a written statement that he is not ready to leave the business world. Though he stayed true to his personality, and said he could win if he wanted to.

  I told you he wouldn’t run and for this very reason. He was never going to turn over his financial records or control of his empire.

Found This At NewsMax

May 15, 2011

Obamacare Spurs Doctor Shortage Crisis The healthcare reform bill enacted last year will significantly increase the number of Americans with health insurance and exacerbate an already looming doctor shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges reported in 2010 that the United States will need an additional 130,000 doctors — general-practice physicians and specialists — in 15 years, 20 percent more doctors than are currently practicing. But medical school enrollment has been essentially flat, and about a third of American physicians are over the age of 55 and likely to retire by 2020. Making matters worse, Congress in 1996 capped the number of new doctors Medicare would pay to train. And President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed cutting Medicare funding for training even further, by $60 billion through 2020. “If this cut is enacted, the doctor shortage would get far worse,” The Wall Street Journal reported. At the same time, the number of patients is certain to increase. Baby boomers will be retiring at the rate of 10,000 per day, and they will require more medical care as they age. Plus, Obamacare will boost the number of Americans with health insurance or participating in Medicaid, which will mean greater demand for doctors’ services. At present, physicians are reimbursed at roughly 78 percent of costs under Medicare, and just 70 percent under Medicaid, according to Michael Tanner, a Cato Institute senior fellow. As a result, more and more physicians are choosing to opt out of the government programs altogether. Already, as many as a third of doctors will not participate in Medicaid, and 13 percent won’t accept Medicare patients. With cuts in reimbursements on the horizon with Obamacare, “retirement in Florida may begin to look like a very good option” for many older doctors, observes Tanner, whose article appeared in the New York Post. “Are they really going to want to stick it out for a few more years if all they have to look forward to is more red tape for less money?” A 2010 poll by IBD/TPP found that 45 percent of physicians would at least consider leaving their practice or taking early retirement as a result of Obamacare. These various factors will combine to produce a shortfall of more than 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. As a start in dealing with the problem, the Obama commission’s recommended cuts in training funds should be set aside, Dr. Herbert Pardes, president and CEO of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, writes in the Journal. “Secondly, the cap enacted in 1996 on training new doctors should finally be lifted. These two steps would go a long way to addressing our country’s medical needs.” Tanner concludes, “Promising universal health coverage is easy. But what does universal coverage mean if you can’t actually see a doctor?”

Hope You’re Happy

May 15, 2011

  Now that the bill decriminalizing medical marijuana has been signed into law, I hope those who supported this are happy.

  There has been several camps that supported the bill, for different reasons.

  First you have the group that knows that this will be only the first step towards the total legalization of marijuana. These are your pro-pot heads. They hope to some day  sit in a pot bar like they do in Europe and toke up  a fat one.

  Then you have the group that want only to make marijuana available to those who have medical needs. They have no desire to see the availability of marijuana expanded. They wish only to end the suffering of those who they believe the use of pot will help.

  Then you have the third group. This is the group that chose to lie to themselves. They knew that this was the opening shot of those working to expand the availability of marijuana to everyone. They know that this would be a mistake. They know that widespread drug use would have a detrimental effect on our society. Yet they chose to tell themselves that allowing medical marijuana was the lesser of two evils.

  This third group chose to delay the fight. They said that we needed to allow this bill to pass for the good of those suffering. They said that we would then fight any expansion of availability of marijuana.

  This is an argument that I am hearing more and more lately. And to be honest, I am getting a little sick of it.  At what point do we admit to ourselves that every time we choose to delay the fight, all we are doing is conceding the battle. Surrendering the field one might say.

 At what point do we say that something is worth fighting for? Not later, but now. When do we stand our ground? Instead of conceding the battle, when do we take the battle to the opposition?

 I am disappointed that some of the people who I would consider conservative in all aspects, were some of the people who populated this third group. They are the same people who will tell us that it extremely important to stand our ground on fiscal issues. And yet they were willing to give ground on an issue they know to be dangerous to our overall good.

  Again I am amazed at how some people believe that their money will be of any good to them if society has fallen apart. What will you buy with your tax savings? How safe will your fine home be if those living around you have no respect for life or property?

  Will you gain some sense of accomplishment if you fight and win to lower taxes ? If you are able to remove restrictions on the energy industry, allowing them to produce more energy at lower cost, will you believe that you have made the world a better place? Can you live with yourself knowing that you chose to delay the fight on an important issue, even though you knew that it would make it easier for the expansion of the availability of drugs.

  I hope that as you sit congratulating yourself and counting your saved tax dollars, that you are happy. As you see the number of people who are using drugs grow, I hope you are happy. 

  I predict that in the next two years or so we will see the expansion of those illnesses that will be covered by medical marijuana. Be it for chronic pain or sleep disorders. Maybe anorexia or other eating disorders. Once we have cracked the egg of expanding its use for medical reasons, it will be a small step to expand it for the use of everyone. Of course we will have our so-called fiscal conservatives telling us that we can tax it and solve our fiscal problems.

  There has to be more than just money that motivates our politics. If not we can just give up now, for we have already lost the battle.

Delaware’s Homosexual Civil Union Bill Is Anti Civil Rights

May 13, 2011

    Let me start by pointing out that it was the homosexual activist, that were pushing for the passage of the civil union bill  in Delaware, that first made the argument that it was akin to the black civil rights movement of the sixties.

  Personally I don’t see the comparison of the two.

  If however the idea was to pass a bill that would allow civil unions for those who wish to join into an arrangement that is similar to marriage, why then did those who sponsored the bill in the General Assembly, craft it in such a way as to exclude all people except for homosexuals?

  This bill was sold as being a way to be more inclusive. Problem is, the bill actually excludes more people than it includes. With this bill heterosexuals will be barred from joining into civil unions. Why?

  Why has the Delaware General Assembly chosen this path? An amendment was put forth to allow heterosexuals to join in civil unions, and was voted down by the supporters of the original bill. Again, why?

  I believe that to have allowed heterosexuals to be included in the bill would have thrown a monkey wrench into the plans of the radicalized homosexual community and their supporters within the General Assembly.

  I believe they intentionally excluded anyone but homosexuals. I believe that they want to have grounds to bring a law suit of discrimination against the state of Delaware using Delaware’s own homosexual antidiscrimination law and the U.S. Constitution.

  Remember that the need for this bill was sold as a civil rights issue. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is very clear on matters of civil rights.

  It clearly states in section one of the 14th Amendment;

” 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

   I would draw special attention to the last line of this section; ” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  Now if the Delaware civil union bill clearly excludes heterosexuals from being able to join into a civil union, it would seem as if, this flies in the face of the 14th Amendment and its intentions.

  This Delaware law actually creates a separate class of people and bestowed upon them a special protection under the law. How can this be constitutional?

  Also as I have listened to the coverage of the signing of this bill by Governor Markell. All I have heard is that this bill creates an environment, where homosexuals can enter into civil unions that will afford them all of the same rights and benefits of heterosexual marriages.

    Let’s review. The people pushing for this bill likened it to the black civil rights movement. Yet they chose to exclude everyone but homosexuals. They now state that this bill has created civil unions that are like heterosexual marriages in every way, except that they are between same-sex partners.

  Didn’t we learn in the sixties that ” separate but equal” was unacceptable?  Isn’t creating a separate class of people and special protection under the law for them counter to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Of course we did, and of course it is.

  That is why I believe this bill was intentionally crafted in this way. The radicalized homosexual community can now come back and state that the bill they pushed for, is actually unfair, due to the fact that, while it creates a “separate but equal” situation. It does not create an equal situation. They will then push for their next step, which is having the joining of same-sex couples designated as a quote un-quote, “marriage” .

  This bill does not take effect until January of 20112. I believe that in that time we should be working to have this law repealed based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If the law does not include all people then it is unconstitutional.

  Now of course some will try to make the argument that heterosexuals need not be included because they can already be “married”.  But under this law no one but homosexuals can enter into a civil union. If we are going to fight people who are playing word games to further their agenda, we had better learn to play word games also.

More Federal Dollars For Sussex County

May 10, 2011

    It has been announced by Delaware Department of Transportation that a $78,000 grant of federal funding, has been awarded to create a plan, to create a Western Sussex Byway.

   The Byway is intended to link historical sites in western Sussex County .

  But much in the same way that I criticized the Sussex County Council for seeking out stimulus funding to create a solar field to supply electric to the emergency operation center. I have to ask. Is this the right time for the federal government to be handing out grants to fund study groups ? To study how best to map a route between historical sites that are already on the maps.

  It also seems as if one of the goals of the byway plan is to limit the use of billboards and other signs. So one has to wonder. If they are going to have the authority to limit signs, what other authority will they have? Could we see access to certain areas taken away? Maybe.

  But back to my larger concern here. At a time when this nation is running huge deficits. When our debt is in the trillions. When every dollar spent is a dollar borrowed. Why is this even on the table?

  This shouldn’t even be up for debate. This is not a necessity. This is a whim. We cannot afford to fund whims at this time.

  Now let me make the argument that I know someone is bound to make. The federal money is out there to be had by some state or county, it might as well be Sussex and Delaware. Also the tax dollars are taken from the citizens of Sussex, so let’s get some back.

  I understand the thought process in those arguments. I just don’t happen to agree with them.  I feel that by participating in taking this type of funding, we are also participating in creating a centralized government power. I am a fiscal conservative who believes in local government control. I believe that having the federal government collecting tax dollars, just so that the federal government can turn around and send tax dollars back to the states they collected them from is moronic. And has nothing to do with conservatism.

  When our state, county and local governments seek this funding they are in essence saying that they agree with the process. They are condoning it and they are legitimizing it. How can a local, so-called, conservative elected official come out against federal intervention today. And tomorrow be announcing that they have procured federal funding for a solar field or some other project that should be handled and justified on a local level?

  I have brought this up with elected officials on several occasions. Of course I get the standard answer of, ” well somebody is going to take the money, might as well be us”. Often they will tout how they fought to bring those tax dollars back to Delaware and Sussex County.

  Well I don’t know about the rest of you. But I am tired of having to fight to bring the money back to where it should never have left. I want leaders who will fight to keep those tax dollars in the state, county and local governments to begin with.  Where you and I have a better chance of controlling through elections how that money gets spent.

 We must begin as citizens to stand on our principles. Then we must demand that our leaders represent our views. And if not? Well then, we will get new leaders.

Never Too Soon

May 7, 2011

   Since we have had our first Republican debate for president, I don’t think it is too soon to start looking at the U.S. senatorial race here in Delaware.

   We are still waiting to see who will step forward for the Republicans to take on incumbent  Democrat Sen. Tom Carper.

    But I think that it is important to understand who Tom Carper has been since being in the U.S. Senate.

   Sen. Tom Carper is a partisan politician. Now there is nothing wrong with that if you happen to believe that the Democrats have been right in their policy positions.  Mr. Carper  votes around 93% of the time with the Democrats.

  More telling is the fact that Mr. Carper votes around 97% of the time with Pres. Obama’ position on issues.

  It doesn’t seem as if Mr. Carper is much of a free-thinker. In fact, it seems as if he is a party hack and presidential lackey.

  Again, if you have been satisfied with the direction the nation has been heading  under the control of the Democrats and Pres. Obama, then I guess that Tom Carper is your man. He definitely seems to be Pres. Obama’s man.

  His voting record is clearly tied to the Obama administration, including his  no vote for the repeal of Obama care. Again Mr. Carper’s vote was along party lines and in line with Pres. Obama. While ignoring the will of the people. Polls had shown that nearly 75% of the American people were in favor of repealing Obama care.

  As we move closer to the election of 2012 I am sure we will be seeing more about the voting habits of Mr. Carper.