Archive for January, 2012

Give Or Take

January 28, 2012

  Thge Sussex County Council has released their end of year report in which they tell tax payers that the county collected  3.4 million dollars too much this past year.

  Okay, that isn’t exactly what the press release from Chip Guy said, but it is what it amounts to.  The report calls it a surplus, but that is only possible if they have collected more than they have spent. Let me give credit where credit is due. The Sussex County Council has consistently kept spending down while not raising property taxes. Though they have from time to time raised fees.

   Another reason for the surplus is that the transfer tax revenue was higher than projected. This is always good news, since it is a sign that the home market may be turning the corner.

  I do have one reservation about the news of the surplus. That is the news that the council intends to return, in a one time tax credit, a little more than one million dollars on tax bills later this year. The rest will go to the County’s pension funds, local law enforcement, land preservation and various grants.

  The problem I have is why not give more back to the people the money was taken from? Instead the council intends to give the money to county worker in the form of pension payments. They will fund local law enforcement. But what should upset all tax payers is the grant money that the council will hand out as they see fit.

  In the past the council has given tax dollars to fund little league, fireworks display at a church and funding for other private ventures.

  Would it not be more in keeping with conservative principles to allow the tax payers to keep more of their money so that they could decide for themselves which private enterprises to donate to? Shouldn’t local law enforcement receive their funding from their local taxes? As for the county pensions, well maybe we should see a higher percentage donated by the employees themselves.

  We have a county council populated with four out of five, by Republicans. Shouldn’t we expect more from them in the way of conservative principles. I am grateful for their efforts to keep property taxes low. I am grateful for them keeping the spending down. But when we find ourselves over taxing the citizens, then the conservative thing to do is to give the money back to the tax payers.

  I don’t know what a million dollars spread across all of the tax bills in the county will amount to, but I do know that two million would be more.

 

Matthew 6

January 28, 2012

  I know that it seems as if all we down here in Sussex County talk about is prayer here and prayer there.

  We have become the county of the prayer law suit. Our county council has been sued over its former practice of holding an organized prayer during its monthly meetings and the Indian River School Board was also sued for holding an organized prayer during its meetings.

  This post will center more around the IRSB issue, than the Sussex County Council suit. This is because I believe that the council has solved their issue by now saying a prayer before calling the meeting to order. This has not always been the case and is why they were sued.

  I have made my opinion on this issue well-known. I feel that once these public meeting are called to order, the elected officials become a body government and no longer are acting as individuals and so, are no longer afforded the same rights as individuals.

  Some might ask why is Frank Knotts again writing about something that both he and others have debated to the point of being obnoxious. Well because there are those on the other side of this issue who feel the need to continue to push the issue.

  The Supreme Court of the United States recently declined to hear the case involving the IRSB. This means that the lower court ruling in the 3rd District Court remains the final word, at least for now. That ruling was that the IRSB must stop its long practice of holding an organized prayer during its meetings.

  I would suggest that the IRSB solve this issue in the same way that the Sussex County Council has, say the prayer before calling the meeting to order. Simple, no?

 Well it seems as if this would not suit some. There are those, both on the board and in the community, that feel that this is a cause worth fighting for.

  I was listening to the Dan Gaffney Show on WGMD, live from Jimmy’s Grille, on Friday morning, when Dan called Robert Wilson to the microphone. Mr. Wilson is a member of the Indian River School Board.  Mr. Wilson then proceeded to discuss the law suit and the ongoing attempt to mobilize the public in an effort to over turn the court decision.

   Mr. Wilson stated that of course the Board itself would abide by the court’s decision, and would continue to seek legal recourse to over turn the ruling.

   Mr. Wilson then spoke of the citizens who are now coming to the meetings to say prayers during the portion of the meeting set aside for public input. There are fifteen minutes at the beginning and fifteen minutes at the end of each meeting. During this time the public is free to address the Board about issues facing the school district, and it would seem to offer up prayers.

  This act of so-called civil disobedience seems to have been organized by Sussex County’s self-appointed champion of prayer Eric Bodenweiser. Mr. Bodenweiser, who ran a failed campaign for state senate, who was vocal during many of the debates concerning the Sussex County Sheriff’s push for expanded powers and who was voted out of the Sussex County GOP Executive Committee after making what many saw as unethical statements about how the Sheriff’s issues could be solved by some backroom dealing, has become a  fixture at the IRSB meeting and has been offering prayer during the public portion of those meetings.

 Mr. Bodenweiser has been joined in this display by at least one other notable member of the Sussex County community, that would be Don Ayotte. Mr. Ayotte has also been vocal in his support of the Sheriff’s push for expanded powers. Mr. Ayotte has  sought to hold offices within the Delaware and Sussex GOP. He is currently the Vice Chair of the 37th Rep. Dist. and has recently announced his intentions to run for the 3rd councilmatic dist. in Sussex against the Democrat Joan Deaver.

  Let me state first, that I feel that anyone who wishes to use the public portion of these meetings to say a prayer are well within their first amendment rights of free speech. I only hope that they do not in their exercising of this right, prevent others with actual school board business from being heard.

   Let me return to Mr. Wilson on WGMD for a moment, on Friday morning Mr. Wilson called on religious leaders in the community and the public itself, to please come out to the board meeting and to say a prayer during the public portion to show support for prayer and for the board.

 To me this is a clear demonstration of what concerns myself and others about this type of blending of faith and government. Here we have an elected official more concerned with calling people to the meetings to pray, then to focus on issues facing the district.  I have been listening to WGMD for many years now and I don’t recall Mr. Wilson taking the time to send out a message asking citizens to come to the meeting to discuss the PTA or to talk about any of the other issues facing school districts across the state. Yet he is motivated to call on people to come to the meeting and to monopolize the public portion of the meeting with prayer.

  This is not to say that Mr. Wilson is not a good member of the board, it is to ask why he is more concerned with having the public  attend now then it seems that he was in the past, at least he is now more vocal.

  During his time on air Mr. Wilson stated that if anyone wanted more information on participating in this act of civil disobedience, that they could contact himself or Mr. Bodenweiser.

 When asked by Dan Gaffeny if the board had considered continuing the organized prayer in spite of the court’s ruling, Mr. Wilson said that, “they” would probably send Mr. Christopher around to arrest them. So it would seem as if Mr. Wilson also thinks the sheriff has arrest powers.

  This issue has been debated back and forth in many forums. Mostly it has been addressed from a constitutional perspective, in other words from the point of view of man’s law. Personally I believe that the Constitution is clear on this issue, that there is a clear intent within the First Amendment that the Founders intended for there to be no blending of faith and government.

 Of course there are those who will say that since the word separation does not actually  appear in the text, then there is no such intent. Okay, I disagree and we could argue that again if you like.

 However, I feel that there is a higher authority that also warned us against blending faith and government. That would be Jesus.

 Of course we all know of the “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”.

  I happen to feel that Matthew 6 is very relevant to this issue, it seems to be speaking directly to us on this issue.

  Look to Matthew 6:19-21;

 19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

   Or  maybe 6:24;

  24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

  Of course the most telling verses on this issue from Matthew come in 6:1-8;

  1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

 2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

 4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

 5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

 7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

  So I ask, are those who are seeking to institute this organized prayer during public meetings, really serving and holding to the word of our Saviour? Or are they merely seeking to draw attention to their own earthly desires?

  In my opinion the idea that we must speak a prayer through a microphone, or that we must say our prayers out loud and in some organized group to be heard by God, is insulting to God and borders on heresy. My understanding of the Gospel is that God knows my needs even before I do. I do not pray for outcomes, I pray to give thanks, and I certainly do not dare to tell God what it is I need.

  All would be served better if we would spend more time in silent prayer for our own souls and work to make the world surrounding us better one soul at a time, our own. If we do this, then all that we do and come into contact with will benefit.

 

Don Ayotte Announces Run For Sussex County Council

January 26, 2012

Here is a link to the announce ment in the Cape Gazette.  my only comment will be that in the article Mr. Ayotte seems to have modified his stance on two recent issues within Sussex County. As a member of the GOP Executive Committee Mr. Ayotte was a vocal supporter of two resolutions urging the Sussex County council to take action on these issues.

 First was a resolution in support of prayer during the council meetings, and second was a resolution urging the council to give into the demands of Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher for expanded powers.

 In this Cape Gazette article Mr. Ayotte seems now to be willing tom allow the courts to decide the matter. While this is not totally inconsistent with his previous stances on these issues, it is a marked difference from his vocal support during GOP Executive meetings.

 http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/news/story/republican-don-ayotte-enters-district-3-race/201067

Endorsement Wars

January 23, 2012

 It would seem as if the battle of the endorsements for the sixth senatorial district in Delaware on going.

 The first shot was fired by Ernie Lopez, when shortly after announcing his intentions to run for the state senate, he was endorsed by four former Sussex County GOP Committee Chairs, Dave Burris, Phyllis Byrne, Bill Lee and Ron Sams.

  The next shot was fired by former candidate for the U.S. House, Glen Urquhart, when he told a local down state newspaper that he had been endorsed by former Republican Governor Pete Du Pont.

  But oh snap! Seems that he was a little premature. It seems that Gov. Du Pont had made that statement when he believed that Mr. Urquhart would be the only Republican candidate. Gov. Du Pont has never endorsed a primary candidate, and sees no reason to start now.

  Gov. Du Pont did however endorse Mr. Lopez in his 2004 run at the New Castle County Council’s President seat.

  There was also some talk that former Lt. Governor who became Governor, Dale Wolf, has endorsed Mr. Urquhart, but oh snap two times up!! Seems this was not the case either, since Mr. Wolf felt it necessary to put out this statement.”I want to be very clear that I have not endorsed Mr. Urquhart, and at this particular time, I have not endorsed either candidate,”

  Now clearly this could well be another case of not wanting to get involved in a primary fight. But one has to ask, how are these so-called endorsements making their way to the public? And without the approval of those who supposedly have made them.

  Well it would seem as if Mr. Lopez has now upped the stakes in the endorsement battle.

  It has been announced that state Rep. Harvey Kenton(R) of the 36th Dist and Rep. Ruth Briggs-King(R) of the 37th Dist have endorsed Mr. Ernie Lopez in his bid for the new 6th Senatorial District.

 One can only wonder what Mr. Urquhart will follow this up with, and will it actually stand the smell test this time.

 

Huntsman Is Out

January 16, 2012

  John Huntsman has announced that he is withdrawing from the race to be the GOP presidential nominee. He has also announced that he is endorsing Mitt Romney.

  Well  how about that ! Are you as shocked as I am that John Huntsman has decided that he can’t win. And one has to wonder what was given in promise to get that highly sought after endorsement.

  John Huntsman was never in the hunt, get it? One would hope that this means that he will not be mounting (another hunting reference if you are counting) a third-party shot (okay I was reaching on that one) and will support Romney right up until Romney loses the nomination to either Santorum or Gingrich.

  One would also hope that he will support whoever is the nominee.

  The field is narrowing, which means that every primary becomes more important. I really don’t think Mr. Huntsman had to actually endorse Romney, who else would Huntsman supporters go to?

Who Lost The Game?

January 15, 2012

  Well now that the NFL season has ended for the Denver Broncos and Tim Tebow, the question is who lost the game?

  I have to admit that I was unable to see the last game of the 2011 season for the Broncos, and possibly the last for Tim Tebow as a Bronco. I was working, so maybe someone can fill me in on who lost the game for the Broncos.

   I understand that the topic of Tim Tebow has been covered to the point of being obnoxious. However I feel that it deserves one more look.

   Like many I could not understand the fascination with a quarterback who was universally described as not being ready for the NFL. It would seem that he was attracting most of his attention based on the fact that he was a Christian who was, so-called, outspoken about his Christianity. The fact that he would kneel and pray after a touchdown or a game. That he would give thanks to God first and fore most.

  But really was this  unique? I have been watching football and other sports since I was about nine years old. There has always been players who would first thank God for the blessings that they received. There have been many players who would kneel and give thanks after a touchdown. So why Tebow? Why has  he been embraced by the nation more so say than a Troy Polamalu, he has been making the sign of the cross on the field before and after every play and on the sidelines since coming to the NFL.

  Of course many of the most outspoken supporters of Tebow will tell you that they are just so happy to have a person who is so clearly Christian succeeding. But again Tebow is not the  first. So again, why the stir now?

  To be fair there has been quite a bit of what might be described as being negative attention from some in the media.

  I do believe that his faith has driven both sides of the Tebow question. I also believe there is a political aspect to the topic. We shouldn’t forget that Tebow came to national attention after the Super Bowl commercial he made with his mother with a pro-life theme. Clearly abortion is a huge political issue.

  Let me say, from what I can tell from the public image of Tim Tebow, he is an example to both the young and old. He is an example of how we should all live our lives. But not because he is a football player, not because he is a successful football player. His strong faith should be an example to all who call themselves Christian. This is true whether he is a football player, or a farmer, or a doctor, or a dishwasher.

  I have actually heard some people saying that the Broncos were winning because of Tebow’s strong faith, well maybe, one never knows. Possibly God has been working through Tebow to inspire others to follow the word of Christ. If so, I think many have missed the message, since most of the praise has been for Tebow’s courage, instead of for Christ.

  Ever since Tebow has taken on the role as starting quarterback for the Broncos the story has been Tebow. It would seem to someone who knows nothing about the game, that one man could win alone. Story after story talked about Tebow this, Tebow that.

  So now what? Did Tebow lose the game? Will his supporters now say that it was the defense that let Tebow down? Is God testing the faith of those who felt so strongly about Tebow? Has Tebow done something in his private life, or merely within his heart, that has angered God, so that God removed his football support of Tebow?

  I don’t know what part Tebow’s faith played in his success or his failure, other than I do believe that faith in God can give you an inner strength that allows you to rise above challenges. However, we all know that there are many players in the NFL who have not exactly lived a Christian life. There are many in the NFL alone who have murdered, raped and sold and done drugs who have been what some would call successful.

  I would encourage those who were so moved by Tebow’s demonstrations of faith on the field, to also seek out others away from the field. Look for the person who holds the door for the person behind them. Look for the young man who helps the elderly lady to her car with her groceries. Look for the person who returns the wallet they find on the street, along with the large amount of money within.

  In other words, look for examples of living a moral upstanding life in everyday life. Be it from an NFL quarterback, or your neighbors, or a stranger you have never met. 

  More importantly strive to be an example of living a moral upstanding life. Remember, if Tim Tebow inspired even just one person to seek God through Christ, then he is a success, and if you or I inspire even just one person to seek God through Christ by the way we go about our lives and the little everyday things we do, then we are an equal success.

 

 

Who Will Be Our Candidates ?

January 12, 2012

  On the national scene we have had one caucus, one primary, we are less than ten days from the second primary, the media is already quoting polling from Florida which will be the third primary and they are already trying to sell it,  that the race is over and that Romney will be the GOP nominee.

  Did we learn nothing from 201o? Are we really going to allow the media and the establishment to pick our nominee again, as they did with John Mc Cain?

   If the first four states are going to be the deciding factors in the primary process, then we need a new system, or at the very least, a new primary schedule.

  I for one am tired of being irrelevant here in Delaware. I am sure that many citizens across the nation feel the same way, when after listening to the hype of the run up to the Iowa Caucus and waiting for their own home state’s primary, only to be told that it is all over and they have no say at all.

  I am also concerned with the group we have to select from.  Let me include my personal choice out of the current field, Rick Santorum. He is after all a career politician, as is Newt Gingrich and to lesser extent Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and John Huntsman. I know that all have most likely had some dalliance outside of politics at some time in their youth, but let’s face it, they are all politicians for life.

  I don’t think any of them would be confused for what one might call the average man, yet they will all tell you they understand the needs and troubles of the average citizen. I wonder if any of them know the cost of a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread.

   Mitt Romney will tell you that he is the only one who knows how to create jobs because he once was in charge of other people money. Oh ! Wait ! That is exactly what political leaders do, isn’t it?

  The problem we have here in America is that the system to elect people to office has itself grown into a business. One that cost a lot of money to run. No longer can the average man or woman hope to run for office. No longer can we tell our children that they too can grow up to be President. That is unless they are bank rolled by some radical leftist leftover bomber from the sixties. Or some radical leftist money changer out to destroy the worlds economic system.

   As we progress further and further our system is creating an elite group of people who are in turn becoming a ruling class. This is not what the founders intended.

  It is not only a national problem. We can look right here at home in Delaware and see the roots of the same poison fruit spreading across the political landscape.

  I am noticing more and more that there is a movement to limit who can run for office in Delaware.  Currently there is proposed legislation to require that all elected officials and I believe also all candidates, to give a list of all family relation who work for the state, right down to if they work for a non-profit organization that receives money from the state.

  On the surface this may seem a good thing. I am sure that it is intended to stop elected officials from giving favor to agencies and organizations that their family members may benefit from.

  There is also a bias against employees of the state from seeking elected office.  Some would even bar from office anyone who might be married to a state employee. I for example would not be able to run for office as my wife is a state employee and my daughter is studying to be a teacher.

 Think of the thousands of people excluded from office, simply because a relative works for the state. So what does that leave us for candidates?

 If we factor in the cost of running for office, and the amount of time that must be committed to the office of say a state senator, we are left mostly with wealthy retired  people or at the very least a candidate must be self-employed so that they can set their own hours.

  If we also bar another group of people and their relatives from elected office we have further shrunk the number of possible candidates. Every time we reduce the number of people who are eligible, we give more power to the ruling class.

 I am not in favor of elected officials receiving state jobs after they are elected, I do however feel that it is a legitimate issue to discuss that a candidate is already a state employee. To ask whether they would be in a position to benefit from the office they seek.

 That being said, I have a serious problem with creating list that may possibly be used to bar people from participating in the governing process.

  It seems as if there is a move by the establishment to set new rules of who can run for office and in so doing, they would solidify their own positions of power.

 

Chairman Urquhart’s Weekly Appearance

January 5, 2012

  What might have been the last appearance of Glen Urquhart as the Sussex County GOP Chairman, on the Bill Colley Show, on WGMD was another moment to remember.

   I came in around the middle of the weekly appearance just as the Chairman was talking about the number of state employees (I wonder why?)

   There was a mention of his “POSSIBLE” run for the sixth state senatorial district. He then took some time to discuss his vision of how to move the state forward. And to be fair the things he was talking about could be applied broadly, to be seen as the vision of the GOP in general. But since Mr. Urquhart announced during another of his weekly appearances on WGMD his intentions to run for the sixth, it is hard to not see it as a candidate taking advantage of some free airtime.

 First let me say that Bill Colley is free to run his show as he sees fit. He can front for whoever he chooses.

  I rarely call in during these appearances. However this week I felt the need to speak out.

  The thing that pushed me to call in was another caller. It would seem that this other caller felt much as I did, that Mr. Urquhart sounded more like a candidate then a chairman. The lady called in and stated that she had been listening to the show. She then asked about how the air time was being paid for, then asked about there being another GOP candidate and whether he would be afforded the same courtesy.

  The answer first came from the host Bill Colley, he stated  that it was his show and that he could have any guest on that he chose. True that. He then said that he hadn’t been contacted by the other possible candidate, wonder why?. Mr. Urquhart then chimed in saying that as far as he knew, no one had filed.

  At no time did either Mr. Urquhart or Mr. Colley name Ernie Lopez as the other candidate. They did however mention the Democrat candidate Andy Staton, by name, as a candidate for the sixth.

  It was at this point that I felt the need to call in. The host picked up my call and identified me as an active member of Mr. Urquhart’s committee. I began my call by thanking the host and by addressing Mr. Urquhart as Mr. Chairman. I then said that I wanted to help the caller who had asked about another candidate by letting her know that his name was Ernie Lopez. I then asked the Chairman if he felt that it was appropriate to be on air representing himself as the chairman, yet sounding and acting more like a candidate. I also asked if it was the sign of a good chairman to be asked about a possible candidate, and to not give the name of the possible candidate. A chairman should be supporting all candidates, that is unless said candidate is going to be your opponent of course.

 I have made my views well-known on this topic, both here and to Mr. Urquhart personally. I do feel that this is the best demonstration of the problem of having a sitting chairman who is clearly also a candidate.

  Let me back up for a moment. I did not actually get an answer from the chairman, Mr. Colley jumped in with a question about whether I was supporting Ernie Lopez, more on this later. I then got more of what the other caller had gotten, that being, that no one had actually filed so there were no real candidates as of yet.

  I wonder if Mr. Colley gets irony? He had opened his show talking about a list of possible candidates here in Delaware from the GOP. He was lamenting the lack of a single candidate from Sussex. Could that be because our chairman was not completely focussed on recruiting candidates? That is except for one!

  I just cannot believe that this keeps going on and on. I know I cannot be the only person who has made this point directly to Mr. Urquhart.  A chairman must be willing to support all candidates, damn wasn’t this why we had the showdown with Tom Ross  in Georgetown? We were so pissed off because we felt that Tom Ross hadn’t given his full support of a GOP candidate. Well we have to ask, has Mr. Urquhart given his full support to potential candidates? I have to say no.

 

 

After The Revolution

January 1, 2012

  The world’s history is filled with revolution. There has been revolution since the beginning of time. One could say that the original sin committed by Eve was a form of revolt against God’s law.

  Surely since the formation of societies and governments, revolution has moved the world, sometimes for the better and many times to the detriment of mankind.

   2380 BC (short chronology): A popular revolt in the Sumerian city of Lagash deposes King Lugalanda and puts the reformer Urukagina on the throne.

 206 BC: Ziying, last ruler of the Qin Dynasty of China surrenders himself to Liu Bang, leader of a popular revolt and founder of the Han Dynasty.

 73–71 BC: The failed Roman slave rebellion, led by the gladiator Spartacus.

 49–45 BC: Julius Caesar crossed the river Rubicon heading part of the Roman army and marched on Rome. After overthrowing and assuming control of Pompeian government, he was proclaimed “dictator in perpetuity”.

 A.D.

 6–9: The Great Illyrian Revolt of various Illyrian tribes against the Roman Empire

 1418–1427: Vietnamese led by Lê Lợi revolted against Chinese occupation.

 1606–1607: The Bolotnikov rebellion for the abolition of serfdom, which was part of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

 1688: The Glorious Revolution in England overthrew King James II and established a Whig-dominated Protestant constitutional monarchy.

 1768: The Rebellion of 1768 by Creole and German settlers objecting to the turnover of the Louisiana Territory from New France to New Spain.

 The above list is but a small sample of the thousands of revolts throughout history, around the world. I collected them from Wikipedia, here is a link to the complete list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions .

  Of course no list of revolts or rebellions would be complete without,     

 1775–1783: The American Revolution establishes independence of the thirteen North American colonies from Great Britain, creating the republic of the United States of America.

  It can be and has been argued that the American Revolution is the single most important event in the history of mankind, second only to the birth of Jesus the Christ, in changing the course of mankind.

  Some might argue that the Civil War and the Bolshevik Revolution are equally as important. While these conflicts were both significant events, they have not had the lasting effect on the world as did the American Revolution, in my opinion.

  No matter which revolution or rebellion that you think is the most significant, the conflict itself is actually secondary to what follows.

  What happens after the revolution? Of course if the powers that are being challenged are victorious, then it is likely that little will change. Often there will be retribution against the rebels for daring to revolt in the first place. Another question about what happens after the revolution, depends on who is revolting and what they are revolting against.

  Not all revolutions are inspired by good intentions. Many revolutions are in fact stirred solely for the acquisition of power, while others seem to have the best intentions for the good of the all, end up installing some of the most tyrannical regimes known to man.

  If we take the American Revolution as an example of doing it right, we see that our Founding Fathers worked as hard after the revolution, as did the Patriots who fought during the war.

 After the last shot was fired and the building of a new nation began, it was important that the Framers did not abandon their revolutionary principles.  It would have been very easy for them to simply take control of the new government and to ignore the principles put forth in our Founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

 The fact that the new nation actually had to create a second governing document because the first, The Articles of Confederation, did not work to guarantee those principles, is a testament to the conviction of those who founded this nation.  It was this vision, and the strength of integrity that allowed the Framers to see the error of their ways, that empowered them to voluntarily disassemble what they had put together, only to improve on it in a way that has allowed this nation to exist as the shining light of Liberty for the last two hundred and twenty-five years.

   Each and every one of us face similar challenges in our everyday lives. Certainly our choices may not have the impact that those of our Founding Fathers have had, but it is through holding to so-called first principles that we find our way through life.

  As this new year begins we must ask ourselves, are we showing the strength of integrity that is needed to make these choices?  As someone who is extremely interested in political affairs, I can’t help but relate the views I have expressed here, to what has been unfolding here in Delaware for the last couple of years. Specifically within the GOP of the state and of Sussex County.

  We within the GOP of Delaware in general and within Sussex County specifically should take a long look at where we are headed.  I don’t think that it is too much of a stretch to call what happened within the Delaware GOP in the  last two years somewhat of a revolution.

  The last election cycle saw a career moderate, to leftist Republican politician defeated in a GOP primary. We also saw another party endorsed candidate defeated in the same primary season. Following these victories by a grass-roots movement within the GOP we lost the general elections. Some saw this as a failure of the revolutionaries, the revolutionaries saw it as unfinished business.

 Once the dust had settled from the election there was a bloodless  coup d’ etat within the GOP. First there was a cry for the resignation of the State Chairman Tom Ross which resulted in his resigning. At the same time there was growing discontent with the leadership of the Sussex County Chairman Ron Sams as well, which also resulted in his stepping down.

  For full disclosure I played my small part in this so-called revolution. Like many within the GOP in Delaware I felt that many of us who considered ourselves the more conservative faction of the party, were under represented within the party leadership. We felt that the time had come to take control of the party. We wanted a more rank and file focus from the party, a bottom up organization. We wanted the voter to have the loudest voice within the party.

 Like all revolutions we had our battle cries, things like RINOs, establishment, and elitist party leadership. Another one we were fond of was upstate elitist party establishment RINOs, just to cover all of our bases.

 Depending on your perspective you could say that the revolution was a success. It was  able to topple the state chairman and the Sussex County chairman as well.

  Clearly there were two icons of the revolution, these would have been the two candidates who upset the party endorsed candidates in the GOP primaries. These two candidates inspired many rank and file voters to become involved and  actually working on a political campaign for the first time ever. They should have been the new leaders and the new face of the GOP.

 In the one’s case they chose to disengage for the most part to focus on personal task. Coming back long enough to make a presidential endorsement that has angered many of their former supporters, due to the fact that the person they endorsed has no resemblance to the principles that the revolution held to.

 The second chose to stay engaged, they actually took a leadership role within the party. Though some of the things that have happened during their leadership time, has left some wondering if it was for the best.

 So now we are headed for  another election cycle and due to the revolution, the party is in turmoil. One has to wonder, have those who stirred the revolution held to the first principles of the revolution? Or have they become that which they revolted against?

  We have to ask, have the founders of the revolution worked to create, sustain and maintain a bottom up organization? Or have they succumb to the seduction of power? Have we substituted one establishment elite for that of another?

  It falls to those of us who demanded change, dare I say it? To be the change we demanded.

 We here in Sussex County are about to select new leadership, will we seek to hold to the principles of the revolution? Or will we simply install another administration that seeks to direct instead of lead, will we demand that the voter have the loudest voice? Or will we settle for leadership that feels that they know more than the rank and file?

 I have to admit that I have had to ask myself these same questions. Have I held to the principles of the revolution? In some cases I have found myself lacking. So this is not judgement of others, it is simply a warning, that if we want to achieve that which we fought for, then we must hold true to the so-called first principles of the revolution. The first being personal integrity. The second being holding ourselves as well as others accountable.