I Am Not A Criminal

January 12, 2013

   I am not a criminal, and so I am asking President Obama, Vice President Biden and every state legislator who are now rushing to pass legislation to further restrict gun ownership, to please not make me a criminal.

  There has been a constant battle cry from the anti-gun lobbies since the Sandy Hook shooting, for there to be action taken by law makers to pass laws and restrictions in an attempt to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

  Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is no law, no restriction, that can stop a person from killing another person if they truly want to do so. Let us remember that Abel was murdered with a rock.

  What I find most troubling is the rush to act, to do something, anything, no matter if it is the right thing, or if it will actually do what it is proposed to do.

  The fact is, nothing that I have heard proposed would actually stop even one person from killing another, in my opinion, because all of the laws will do nothing except punish someone after the fact.

 We know that most, if not all, of the recent shooters have broken existing gun laws, yet some believe that if we only pass more laws we can stop future shooters.

  Some think that if we reduce the size of a gun’s magazine capacity, then we will reduce the number of people killed in these types of events. Maybe, but are we saying that to kill only ten people as opposed to thirty is morally acceptable? And even so, if a person goes out and buys an illegal magazine, they are unlikely to be arrested until they use it in some other illegal act. So this means that if they buy it illegally, then they shoot up a school, the people are just as dead, even if the shooter is later charged with owning an illegal magazine. The same goes for banning certain types of guns.

 Now let us talk about another favorite of those who would restrict gun ownership, background checks.

  Some believe that if only every person who buys a gun would go through a background check, then there would be fewer gun crimes. Sorry but I don’t see this either.

  If I buy a gun from a friend or a relative for home protection and never use it, then why should I be a criminal for having bought it? If on the other hand a person buys a gun on the street and then kills ten people with their legal sized magazine, how does charging them after the fact for not having gone through a background check solve anything, or help those murdered?

  This would also do nothing to stop the cases where a person buys a gun and completely follows the letter of the law, is sane, has no criminal background, yet at some point after buying the gun has some mental breakdown and use the legally purchased gun with its legal sized magazine to kill ten people.

  Now let us look to legislation that is being proposed by a Delaware state senator, Sen. Robert Marshall of Wilmington(D). Sen. Marshall has of course jumped onto the Democrat bandwagon of banning so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but he has gone even further in suggesting that along with any state restriction upon gun owners, that local town and counties within the state be given the authority to also impose even more gun owner restriction such as requiring local licensing laws.

  This could mean that every town in the state could require a gun owner to apply for and of course pay for a separate license, or to totally ban guns from within their limits.

  This is completely absurd. The logistical nightmare alone should be prohibitive of such a law. Under the proposal, the state would be in charge of setting the punishment for breaking these laws and in many cases for enforcing them, since many of these towns do not have their own law enforcement.

 But let us look at this from the view-point of a gun owner. I would have to be aware of possibly thirty to forty different gun laws just to travel through the small state of Delaware, how many laws might I break just going from one side of Sussex County to the other? Not to mention people traveling through the state from other states.

 Even if it was limited to just allowing the three counties to set their own restrictions, is this a good idea? Again I think not. I am a citizen of the state of Delaware, why should I be required to have a law degree just to be able to travel legally through my state with a weapon that I obtained legally and which I have a state permit to carry concealed.

 There is of course much here to be supposed upon. Would this be a case of the stricter law taking precedent, so that if the state law is stricter then that is the law, or if the town law is stricter then that is the law.

  Now before some of my fellow conservatives begin to see this as a way to gain more local control, think this out my friends.

  I feel that of course it will be a case of the stricter laws taking precedent. So what that means is, if one town wants to pass a total ban on guns they will be allowed to do so, however if another town wished to allow gun owners to own high-capacity magazines and assault weapons they would not be allowed to because the state would have already banned them.

 This clearly brings up a question of equal protection under the law. Is it equal protection under the law if one community has the power and authority to make and pass laws that reflect their views and wishes on gun issues, yet another community ten miles down the road is not afforded the same powers and authority?

 Clearly Sen. Marshall is anti-gun, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is in his own mind, acting in the best interest of the citizens of his district. However, I feel that if such legislation as he and others are proposing were to be passed, they would actually be putting the very people they profess to want to protect at the greatest risk. That is the law-abiding citizens, and they would be making criminals of those who would still seek to protect themselves, even at the risk of being made a criminal.

 The final word as always on this topic is that criminals will always be criminals, we do not create fewer criminals when we rush to pass new and expanding laws, we create new criminal, and usually they are what in any other case would be considered law-abiding citizens.

  I would ask the Delaware legislators to slow down, do not take the lead of Washington, please think about what it is you are doing and whether or not it is actually going to change anything, or are you simply acting so that you can say you acted this time, so that the next time, you have cover?

 Don’t make a criminal out of me and my fellow citizens who simply want to protect our families and home. I am not a criminal, so don’t make me one.

 

Advertisements

What Is A RINO?

January 6, 2013

   Recently someone posed the question of what exactly constitutes being a RINO?

   I have thought about this since that question was put forth and it was suggested that a post should be written to answer this question.

  First for anyone who is not aware that RINO is an acronym for “Republican In Name Only”, meaning that while someone may be a registered Republican, in someone elses view they are not a “TRUE” Republican.

   The phrase RINO is most often used by those who have decided that they are the keepers of the conservative flame, and it is used much in the same way that racist use the “N” word “Jew” as a pejorative. It is ment to be-little the person being attacked, to end discussion and to draw a line of degrees between the self-righteous hurler of the phrase and the person be disparaged.

 First let me say that I have in the past used this term RINO, and for the exact reasons that I have listed above. As time has passed I have realized that the term is not accurate to the intended meaning of the user. I believe that what is actually intended, at least in my case is NARC, “Not A Real Conservative”, since it is the matter of degrees of conservatism that we are talking about.

 I will come back to that point a little later. Right now I want to address this idea of Republican in name only idea. If someone is going to judge the republicanism of another person, then they must have a clear and defined definition of “EXACTLY” what a Republican is.
 
  As I have said, I too used this term, and yet I cannot tell you that there is a strict definition of what constitutes a Republican. We need to remember that Republican is a party, and so it is by definition made up of many differing parts of the conservative ideology.

 I have come to understand that there are differing types of Republicans, there are liberal Republicans, who may see social issues as unimportant, and may even believe that some social entitlements programs are needed, yet on some of the larger fiscal issues they are more in line with the Republican party’s line of thought. Or maybe they are in favor of abortion, but against homosexual marriage. In any case they see themselves more aligned with Republicans and will most times vote for Republican candidates. Yet there is a group of people who would attack them as RINOs and say that they have no business being Republicans. This is no way to grow the GOP!

  There are some people who are registered Republican that are considered “MODERATE” Republicans, these are people who also are labeled RINOs due to the fact that they are not conservative “ENOUGH” for some small group of people who have come to believe that they can see into the heart of others and determine the Republicanism of each individual rank and file voter within the GOP. A moderate Republican is a person who attempts to see both sides of an issue, and may vote for either Democrats or Republicans, though again are more likely to vote for  Republican candidates. The keepers of the gate of Republicanism again would run these people from the GOP, so as to keep the party pure in their view.

  There is a third group within the Republican party, these are the hard right conservatives, these are the people most likely to use the pejorative RINO. They see themselves as the “TRUE” conservatives, as the “TRUE” Republicans, they see it as their duty to point out those who do not meet their standards of Republicanism, they see it as their duty to run all who do not meet these standards from the GOP. They see their form of Republicanism as the “ONLY!” “TRUE!” form of Republicanism.

  The trouble this last group has, is that they have in a large part gone so far right, that they are becoming what they claim to oppose. They have become progressive conservatives. They are fine with growing government in scope and cost, as long as it fits their view of the world, which they can and will change to fit their current desires and wants. Which may actually make them the real RINOs.

 The problem with the term RINO is that it is not possible for any one person or group to determine who is or isn’t a Republican. And really should they?

  Republican is a party, we can only grow the party by being inviting to people, if on the other hand we are uninviting to people, then the party will continue to shrink in size and influence.

  So I hope I have given at least a view of what I see the term RINO to mean. Even though I have used it in the past, I now see it for what it truly is, a word meant to attack that which we cannot refute or that which we dislike.

 I believe that there are many types of Republicans, and we need all of them to defeat Democrats. If we continue to segregate within the party, we will never unify the party. The definition of the word party as it pertains to politics is, “a group of persons with common political opinions and purposes organized for gaining political influence and governmental control and for directing government policy”, notice that it says “common” not “identical” opinions and purposes.

 

With All Due Respect

January 4, 2013

   Let me start this post by saying that I had and have a great respect for all that Jerry Wood did for the GOP, both before and as the Chairman of the Sussex County GOP committee.

  Some may feel that it is too soon to start talking about who will replace Jerry in that position, but since Jerry had made the announcement that he would not be seeking re-election due to health concerns, we would be having this conversation anyway. So with all due respect, I would like to talk about the up coming elections for the Sussex County GOP committee.

  It is no secret that the Sussex GOP is an organization that has several differing factions, and even so, we were still able to elect Republicans to office here in Sussex. Due in some part to the quiet leadership of Jerry Wood.

  So what should we be looking for in our next chairman?

   Let me start with what I feel we don’t need in a chairman. We don’t need a fire-brand, we don’t need the type of person who runs around waiving their hands and calling people names like RINO. We don’t need a progressive-conservative who believes that it is acceptable to grow government, if, in their view the growth is of a “conservative” nature. And we certainly don’t need a chairman who is looking to run for office.

  What we do need, is a person who has conservative credentials, a person who can relate to both the social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP.  A person who has worked on campaigns and who understands how to get people elected.

  I believe that our current vice-chairman, John Riley is exactly the type of person we need in the chairman’s seat.

   I have known John for quite some time now, and have had the pleasure of working with him and have spent hours talking with him about the direction of the Republican party.

  I know John to be a person of strong personal principles and values, who I would challenge anyone, to argue that John Riley is not a true conservative. The type of conservative that has the broad appeal that we should be promoting to the rank and file voters.

  I know John to be a person who holds his personal faith very close, but who does not feel the need to impose his beliefs upon others. I also know John to be a person who understands, that the current fiscal road, that the state of Delaware and the nation are on, is a road to ruin. That is why I feel that John Riley would be an excellent choice for the chairmanship.

 In the time I have known John, I have admired his calmness, a trait that I personally lack.  John is able to communicate his feelings without losing his composure.  He is able to disagree with a person, while still respecting their opinion. John is a person that I believe has the ability, as chairman, to bridge the gap that exist between the differing factions within the Sussex GOP, unlike others who might seek the position, who would do nothing but widen the gap.

  In my opinion the role of the chairman is to recruit candidates, to raise funds, and to organize people to help with campaigns, and to lead by example.                                                                                                                                                            We have to ask ourselves, do we want a leader who will be the face of the county party who is known for ranting and name calling, or do we want a person that is known for being reasonable and level-headed?

  I believe that John Riley is the type of leader we need, the type of leader who has paid his dues within the party by being a worker bee and who has also had experience in leadership roles in the past. I believe that John Riley is exactly the type of leader we need at this time, to unite the party, not a person who would further fracture the party.

  It is 2013 and we cannot afford to waste anymore time arguing amongst ourselves, we need to fix our sights on the true opposition, the Democrats.

  I have spoken with John in the past about my feelings about him taking on the chairmanship of Sussex, though I did not consult him, or warn him, about this post, sorry John to put you on the spot. Some people seek the leadership role, others have it thrust upon them. I am not sure whether John is seeking this leadership role or not, but personally,  I would be honored to work with John Riley to build and grow the GOP so that we can once again have a real role in governing within this great state of Delaware.

Does This Help Anyone?

December 29, 2012

    I am going to go out on a very thin emotional limb here. I know that this may not be a popular opinion, but I have to put this question out there anyway.

   It is being reported that, quote, “the first legal action”, has been filed in relation to the Newtown, Conn. shooting.

    A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor, identified as “Jill Doe”, claiming that the child heard, “cursing, screaming, and shooting” over the school intercom when the gunman opened fire, according to New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

  The claim states, “As a consequence, the … child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined,”

  The claim was filed on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., who will decide whether the claim can be filed as a lawsuit against the state.

   Pinsky’s claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from “foreseeable harm.”

   The claim also charges that the state agencies failed to provide a,  “safe school setting” or design “an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol.”

  So my question is, does this type of action help anyone? Will the $100 million dollars help anyone? Even the child? The reports state that the child’s parents approached Mr. Pinsky, I seriously wonder about that, but even so, will a monetary award help their child more than loving care at home. Maybe the parents should be focussed more on their child and a little less on money. (I told you this would not be popular.)

  Have we actually come to the point where we believe that government can and should be able to protect us from every foreseen and unforseen danger? And when government fails to foresee some unforeseeable danger, should our first response be to sue?

  I have read that the Sandy Hook Elementary School was seen as being state of the art when it comes to security measures, so what is it this lawyer and the parents expected the state to do more of? Would they, before this tragedy, have approved of armed guards patrolling the halls? One has to think that not knowing then, that this gunmen would show up and do this terrible thing, that most parents would have seen the suggestion of armed guards to be outrageous. Yet now in hindsight, they believe that enough was not done.

  I understand that these parents who lost children have every right to overreact, I understand that the parents of the surviving children are overwhelmed with fear that their child might have been one of the children who were taken at such a young age.

  What I don’t understand is how one believes that suing the government will solve the nightmares that their child will deal with.

  I have stated that I am against the knee jerk reaction of the anti-gun lobby who would take away every gun, if they could, in an attempt to stop this from happening again. I have stated that I feel that to take guns away from law-abiding citizens in response to one person’s evil act, fails to see the personal responsibility of the person who performed the act. Even if he were mentally ill, he, not the gun and certainly not any other gun owner, was responsible for the shootings.

  I would say that to sue the government in some misplaced attempt to ease their fear and pain, also fails to deal with the personal responsibility of the parents to deal with their own fears and pain and that of their children. In suing the government they are attempting to deflect their inner fear that they may have failed as a parent to protect their child. Let me say that I do not believe that the parents, anymore than the government, could have done anything to stop this mad man. But as a parent, we feel that we should have done more.

  This type of law suit may be a parent’s misguided attempt to offset a misplaced guilt. No matter, this type of law suit will surely divide, not unite the community of Newtown at a time when they need each other the most.

  I would suggest that instead of turning to lawyers, that the people of Newtown turn towards each other for support.

If We Had Only Known

December 28, 2012

   Like so many people in our lives I didn’t take the time to get to know Jerry Wood, if I had only known that his time was so short, I might have taken the time to find out more about him personally.

  That being said I won’t now attempt to say that I knew him well at all, at least not on a personal level.

  I first saw Jerry at Sussex County GOP meetings that I was attending as a visitor, at that time Jerry was just another of the older gentlemen across the room. My first conversation with Jerry was at a meeting to organize volunteers for Christine O’Donnell.

   On a personal level what I remember most about Jerry is that he was one of the quiet ones at meetings, but when he did have something to say it was usually of a positive nature, always it seemed with an eye towards moving the GOP in a more conservative direction.

  I only knew Jerry for a short time, however it was a very challenging time for the GOP in general and for the Sussex GOP in particular.

  As I have said Jerry was working for Christine O’Donnell at a time when that may not have been the most popular thing to be doing, but Jerry, like myself and others, must have felt it was the right thing to do.

  Jerry’s most stand up act for the Sussex County GOP was when he threw his hat in the ring to become the chairman of the GOP Committee after Glen Urquhart was forced to resign to run for office.

  At the time Jerry took over the chairmanship, the committee was having some serious growing pains, and there was a lot of in-fighting. I do believe that it was Jerry’s election that brought some stability to the committee, though some felt he may not have been aggressive enough to handle the multiple personalities of the Sussex GOP. I would say that he did the best he could with a most dysfunctional family.

  One of the largest challenges that Jerry faced was the state senate race for the 19th district. The primary was contentious and through it Jerry attempted to allow the system to work. Of course what followed was a complete shock to everyone. With the accusations made against the GOP nominee Eric Bodenweiser, the general election win for the GOP candidate was called into serious doubt.

  Jerry played a large role in first convincing Mr. Bodenweiser to suspend his campaign, and then to completely withdraw his name from the race, thus allowing Brian Pettyjohn to petition to have his name added to the ballot.

  Jerry also worked with others to see to it that Brian Pettyjohn’s name was added to the ballot and thus making it possible to win the 19th district for the GOP, which we did. This would not have been possible without the hard work of Jerry Wood and others. It was this type of devotion to the Republican Party that Jerry demonstrated many times in the short time I knew him.

 I will remember Jerry Wood as the quiet gentleman across the room, the guy with the wry, subtle sense of humor. I will remember him as someone who stood up and took on the mantle of leadership when few wanted the job.

  It is often said at times like these that we should keep Jerry in our prayers, but I believe that Jerry is beyond the need for prayers, for he is with our Father. I believe that Jerry is praying for all of us now.

  Jerry, I wish I had taken the time to get to know you better, if I had only known.

 

2013 Cut Backs

December 23, 2012

  It has been announced that due to rising healthcare cost that will be imposed on small business owners as the health care plan now known as Obama-care is implemented, some small businesses will be forced to make deep cuts into their work forces and to make changes to the full-time status of many employees.

  Unfortunately this will include the small business known as North Pole Enterprises, also know as Santa Claus.

  Santa has announced that in the coming year of 2013 he will be forced to cut his elf force in half, and the remaining elves will be cut to only 38 hours a week and no longer considered full-time employees due benefits.

  This of course will put a great burden upon the remaining elves to fill the growing demand for toys. It is believed that Santa will most likely have to pick up a hammer himself and possibly even Mrs. Claus will be forced out of the kitchen and into the work shop to help save the struggling business.

  Of course these changes will affect the amount of toys that can be produced and delivered, it is believed that the Chinese are already ramping up to fill the gap left by the declining production numbers from the North Pole.

  Pres. Obama in a statement assured the people of the world that he and his administration would do everything possible to see that the elves who are laid off will be able to receive unemployment benefits forever. He also has called on the remaining elves to unionize and force Santa to keep them at any cost, even if it means completely destroying the business.

  Pres. Obama went even further and said that if all else fails, he is willing to nationalize North Pole Enterprises, he believes that by combining GM and NPE he could revitalize the failing union system.

  This announcement by Santa is merely the leading edge of what is to come in the coming years of Obama-care. We can expect similar announcements from the Easter Bunny, and I have heard that the Tooth fairy is borrowing 90% of the money she is leaving for children and cannot sustain this for more than another two years and will be turning over operations to a family in West Virginia who have great experience with the loss of teeth.

  Are we looking towards a future that sees small businesses disappearing only to be replaced by nationally subsidized quasi private ownership? I fear so.

Goodbye!

December 21, 2012

  Just in case all of the talk about the end of the world is true, I just wanted to say goodbye.

  Most people have at least heard something about the world ending related to the Mayan calendar. The way it goes is that because the Mayan calendar doesn’t project beyond Dec. 21, 2012, well the world will end today.

  Actually it has come to light, but has not been reported as loudly, because a good end of the world story rocks, the calendar actually does project past 20112, but hey, let’s not ruin their fun.

  I tried to tell my wife I didn’t need to buy Christmas gifts, well because the world would end before Christmas. She wasn’t having any of that and said if there were no gifts, then the world would actually end.

 So let me say that it has been fun knowing you all here in blog land, and if the world doesn’t end, I’ll see you all after Christmas.

 I hope that the holidays finds you all well and safe, may God bless you and your families, and let us all keep the families of  New Town, Conn. in our hearts and our prayers and remember how blessed we are.

 Merry Christmas!

Cragg For Chairman?

December 19, 2012

   There has been some quiet talk  about former Republican candidate for governor of Delaware,  Jeff Cragg, as a potential challenger for the GOP state chairmanship.

   It would seem as though many of the party’s members are less than happy with the current party chairman John Sigler, and also less than happy with state-wide election results in this past election cycle. Of course no matter how popular a person is when taking the office of party chairman, the person will soon be blamed for everything that goes wrong and little that goes right.

  That being said there are some who again feel it is time for a change at the top of the party’s leadership.

  One name that has been spoken of as a replacement for Chairman Sigler, is Jeff Cragg. Mr. Cragg ran against Jack Markell for governor of Delaware this year and though he was unsuccessful, he did manage to make Gov. Markell spend a fair amount of campaign funds that might have been used elsewhere.

 One recurring theme in Mr. Cragg’s campaign was that to win state-wide the party must learn to put aside its internal disagreements long enough to defeat the Democrats, because until we win a majority we do not get to govern.

  This is a message that Mr. Sigler may share, but one he has been unable to deliver on, maybe by no fault of his own, but non the less, the party is as fractured, if not more so, than when Mr. Sigler took the seat as chairman. The two main goals of a chairman in my opinion is to promote party unity and to raise money.

  I will leave this as an open thread for all to give their opinions of the idea of Jeff Cragg as state GOP chairman. Please as always be respectful.

Tragedy Or Opportunity

December 17, 2012

   One has to wonder how some of our political leaders see the recent events at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in New Town, Conn..

  Do they truly see it for the tragedy that it is, or do they merely see it as an opportunity to again push for gun legislation?

  I was listening to news reports the day of the shootings and the clamor for gun legislation began immediately from both the media and Washington, including the President himself, who pushed for it in his news conference, even as investigators were trying to piece the crime scene together to discover what may have taken place and why.

  I am not insensitive to those who were murdered, I am not blind to the added emotions that are brought into play when so many of the victims are children. I understand the emotional knee jerk reaction to attempt to find a way to stop this from happening again. But can we?

 I am not sure that anything we do as a nation or as a society, or as the human race can stop this type of evil from finding a way to do evil things.

  What I am sure of, is that gun laws will never stop evil, this type of insanity is beyond the law.

  If this disturbed young man had instead decided to take a car and drive through a playground and had murdered the same number of children, would we be talking about stricter car laws? If he had use some sort of household cleaners to create a chemical bomb to murder these children, would we be talking about banning bleach and ammonia?

  What I think is, far too many of our political leaders will take advantage of this terrible evil to move a political agenda, to use this to push gun control legislation that they have wanted for some time. This in my opinion is low, even as families are reeling from the realization that their child will never hug them again, that they will never know what great things their child may have done, as these families of both adult and child victims of this monster try to come to some understanding of why this has happened, should we be using their suffering to make political points? I say no.

  We all knew that we would be having this conversation, we have it every time one of these shootings take place, but what bothers me most is that the media and those who would use this event for their political gain, seem insensitive to the feelings of the survivors.

  Have we become so jaded by these types of events that we no longer can allow the wounds to heal even a little before we begin to use the event for gain?

 Notice that I have not mentioned any political party, or political ideology, this is not about political affiliation, it is about human decency, I wish only that we as a people could wait to allow the heat of the moment to cool somewhat before we attempt to address the issue. However our political leaders will see this as weakness, they feel that they must get out in front of the issue to beat the drum for their agenda, no matter how this may add to the pain that the survivors of this tragedy are dealing with.

  I imagine in the coming days and weeks that we will be submitted to visions of small caskets with voice overs of newscasters talking about the unspeakable tragedy and the need to reform the gun laws that allowed this to happen. To trade on such a moment is in my opinion lower than low.

  I would suggest that as we lay our heads down at night, that we offer a prayer for the souls of the victims and for their families and for the entire community of  New Town, Conn.. May God watch over them and may God bless us all and keep us from evil such as this.

Ayotte Loses Again

December 11, 2012

   Well I haven’t written about a monthly Sussex GOP meeting in quite some time, but I felt tonight was worth relating.

   At last months meeting there were several names put into nomination to become Election District Chairs. One of the more notable names was Ron Sams, former county chairman. Mr. Sams has always been a person who has worked to elect Republicans and I guess he feels that it is time for him to step back into the fray.

  Ron Sams was run out of his position as chairman after the elections of 2010 because some felt that he had not supported certain candidates as forcefully as he could have.  There was also a lot of criticism about how he chaired the monthly meetings.

  Well it would seem as if some people are still holding a grudge against Mr. Sams, in this case that would be former councilmatic candidate who was defeated by Democrat Joan Deaver, Don Ayotte.

 As Mr. Sams’ name was read so that he could be voted on for confirmation, Don Ayotte sprang to his feet (as he is want to do) clutching what seemed to be a prepared statement and a copy of the rules for nominating and voting on nominees. His complaint was that Mr. Sams had not been nominated properly according to the rules, and I must state that according to the rules, technology he was correct. As usual Mr. Ayotte presented his case with an angry tone, at one point he told another person to “shut up” and another to “kiss my ass”. One can only wonder why he didn’t win his election.

 Unfortunately for Mr. Ayotte, due to another attempt to block other nominations from being confirmed in the 35th District the rules were suspended and not only were the nominees in the 35th district confirmed, but so was Ron Sams.

  It would seem as if some people believe that we need no new volunteers, that we can afford to push people away.

  Thank goodness that once again Don Ayotte lost, come to think of it, thank goodness Don Ayotte lost.