I think, just about everyone knows, that one of the most controversial issues out there, will be coming up this legislative session here in Delaware. That would be the  so-called gay marriage bill.

I use the term “so-called” because in my mind, as well as that of others within the state of Delaware, the two terms, “gay” and “marriage”, have no place together.

Now I know that saying this alone will anger many people on the left of the political spectrum.  They will instantly label me a hater, that will say that I am a homophobe, or worse. Many will think that I am some backwards hick, or maybe they will simply see me as just another conservative nut case.

That’s okay, there is a lot of that type of quick draw judging going around on both sides of the political spectrum lately. I have been taking those types of shots from the far right as well as the left, all of which leads me to believe that I am exactly where I want to be in the political spectrum.

That being said, let me trudge on here.  Why is it that so many people feel that “gay” and “marriage” have no place together?

Is it simply their fear of the unknown? The fear of the different? Is it simply their belief that the act of two men, or two women engaging in sex is unnatural? Do they actually have reasons why it is detrimental to society? The answer is most likely all the above.

We can start with the people who base their opposition to homosexuals marrying on their own feeling of faith and religion.  They believe that God created man and woman with the intention of the two joining in matrimony in order to procreate and to further the species of man. They feel that sex simply for pleasure is wrong. They also see sex between two people of the same-sex as unnatural and that it goes against God’s will.  They believe that this push for gay marriage is also tied to the push for gay parenting.  That those pushing for marriage to be redefined as being between anyone, not just between a man and a woman, are also looking to have the term of parents redefined, so as to be able to teach homosexuality in the school systems in order to further “normalize” the act.

I have to be honest, I do share these feeling in many cases, I do feel that homosexuality is unnatural, that it does go against God’s will, that it is a detriment to our society, in that it tears down the natural order of life and procreation.  For married homosexual couples to be able to have children of their own, they must go outside of their wedding vows.  When a man and a woman take their wedding vows, that means that they will cleave only unto each other.

For these couple to have children they must again go against God’s will. Either they must procreate with someone outside of their union, someone who is willing to give up the child, or they must, in the case of lesbians resort to artificial insemination. Again, my personal belief on this is that it is unnatural and outside of God’s will.  Now before someone brings up adoption, let me address that, adoption in my view is a useful  tool for the children who are conceived, yet unwanted. Children of single mothers who have the good sense not to abort their children, and the better sense to realize that they  cannot take care of these children.

That would bring us to the question of whether or not a homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt? In my opinion, no. In my opinion a child should be raised by two parents, and those parents should be a man and a woman. I feel that to have children indoctrinated in the life style of homosexuality will only perpetuate that which is unnatural. I know that this may anger many, but it is how I feel.

Does this mean that I think homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to live their lives as they want? Not exactly. What it means is that I am one of those people who feel that homosexuality is a choice, a sexual preference, much in the same vein as a man who is sexually attracted to women with large breast, or dark hair. The same as some women are sexually attracted to men who are tall and have broad shoulders.

While I do believe that such behavior is a sin and goes against God’s will, I am also one of those people who believe that a person’s sin is between them and God, whether they believe in God or not. However, when they seek to involve a third-party, like a small child, then they are imposing their sins upon an innocent, and I feel it is our duty as a society to protect the innocent, the same as we protect them from any number of other things that may have a detrimental effect upon them.

So here in Delaware our Legislature has already decided in favor of allowing civil unions for homosexuals. This allows them to enter into a legal agreement between each other and the state, that declares that they are a legally bound couple and should be afforded all the rights of such.

As this battle for “gay marriage” has been waged those in the homosexual community, have time and again claimed that they were being denied such things as being admitted to their partner’s hospital room, well in today’s times I find it hard to believe that would even happen, but a civil union would cover that. They have claimed that they cannot inherit their partner’s wealth or estate, again a civil union should take care of that, but if not, there are many ways, from a will, to a power of attorney to set all of that up.

The civil union in my opinion was simply a stepping stone for this latest push for homosexual marriage. Those of us who opposed civil unions did so mostly because we knew that this would be the next logical step for those who seek to make it. We have however resigned ourselves to the fact that it has happened, which is exactly what the radicalized homosexual faction of that community is counting on. They know that once passed, that people would become, “comfortable” with civil unions. They also know that here in Delaware the fight will split mostly down partisan lines, with the Democrats on the pro-side, and Republicans on the anti-side.  They also know that right now the Democrats have enough votes to walk this through with barely a sweat.

Let me state, that my opposition to “gay marriage” is not based solely on my understanding of God’s will, as if such understanding were even possible. My opposition goes beyond that. I feel that there is a political agenda here as well as a personal agenda on the part of the radicalized left.

I truly believe that there are homosexual couples out there that want only to share their lives as they see fit. And to be honest, that again is between them and God.  However, I also believe that there is a radicalized faction within the homosexual community that is the political arm of that community.  I believe that this faction, along with the radical left of the Democrat Party are working together, and are using the average homosexual couple to achieve the political agenda.

So what is this agenda? I have felt for a long time that the agenda of the most radical of the left is to destroy the very foundation of this nation, which is our founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

Now many will ask, how can simply allowing homosexuals to “marry”, cause the downfall of the Constitution and the nation?

First one has to understand that the word marriage is a word that has certain formal and religious meaning for most people.  When people hear the word marriage, they often think of a religious ceremony in a church.

Second, here in Delaware, prior to passing the civil union bill, the Legislature had already passed a bill that specifically made it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.

So here we are in Delaware, with a law that says you cannot discriminate against homosexuals, and now some are seeking to pass a law that would strip marriage of its definition of, one man, one woman.  And even though the law in its current state does exempt churches from being forced to perform marriages for homosexuals, one has to wonder what the next move in this game will be?

I happen to think that all of these moves have been leading to a constitutional challenge. I believe that when you couple the anti-discrimination law with the redefining of marriage, the next step is to challenge a church, most likely the  Catholic Church since they are the largest and have the deepest pockets, to challenge their right to discriminate against homosexuals to be married within their faith of choice.

I believe that once the “Defense Of Marriage Act” is defeated in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I believe it will be, because the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to pass such law, though I feel the individual states do, but once it falls at that level, we will see in states like Delaware, that homosexuals will seek to be married within their faith of choice. Once they are denied that marriage, we will see groups such as the ACLU come in and challenge the church under the anti-discrimination law. The question will be, how can the church deny this couple a “MARRIAGE”, while allowing all these other couple a “MARRIAGE”? When the definition of “MARRIAGE” now includes any and all forms of couples?

We will see this argument taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be a challenge to the First Amendment and our freedom of religion. On the one side will be the churches arguing that to force them to marry homosexuals will violate their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. On the other side we will have the homosexual community, claiming that they have been discriminated against, and will use the state laws of anti-discrimination and the new definition of marriage as their defense.

I can see how this could easily spiral into a constitutional crisis. I can see how the radical left would call for a constitutional congress to settle it. I can see how that once they are able to play on the emotions of so-called fairness, that they might actually be able to pull this off.  Once that happens, once they are able to call a constitutional congress, and once they crack open that egg of law, they will be able to throw out the entire document and re-write a new one.

This would mark the end of the “American Experiment”. For once we allow the magic,  that our Founding Fathers discovered, to escape the bottle, we will never be able to find it again. We must protect this heritage of Liberty at all cost.

To touch on one of my earlier themes, when talking about this issue, those who are the most ardent opposition to the redefining of marriage, do so from the position of their faith. They speak only of how this is against God’s will, and how it is unnatural. They speak only of the religious aspects of the issue. The problem with that tactic, is that not all people will share their views on faith, if they have any faith at all. It will also allow the supporters of homosexual marriage to paint their opposition as simply  “bitter clingers”.

As I feel about most issues, if we are to defeat this attack on both marriage and in my opinion, the Constitution, then we  must have a multi-faceted approach. We cannot allow ourselves to be painted into a corner, where our only defense is one of religious fervor.  We should recognize that in this case the other side has a political agenda as well as a societal one. That they are seeking to not only change society and its view of this sexual preference, but certain factions within the movement are also seeking to change the political landscape of this nation, in a way that would leave it completely unrecognizable.

We must also recognize that this may be a fight here in Delaware that we conservatives are not equipped to win, based on the last elections. We should understand, that we must find a way to unite in order to defeat the real opposition.  I am not sure we can do that soon enough to stop this latest attack on both our traditional values and our Founding Principles, but we must try.

  The following is a post I wrote in April 2012 in my former blogger’s life. I wrote it in response to attacks from the so called conservatives who felt they were the keepers of the gate. Due to recent comments on my post here at Delaware Right, I felt it was appropriate to post it once again. Of course those whom I am addressing this to, will never be able to recognize themselves within this piece. 

   My journey to becoming a liberal began many years ago. Okay, that sounds a bit pretentious, huh?

    I was not born a liberal, I became a liberal. No. That was too dramatic maybe.

   I was once called a right-wing radical and “wing nut”, but now I am labeled a liberal. That’s more like it.

  So how does someone manage to go from being considered ultra right-wing, to being called far left?

  Well in my case it happens by holding to my core values and standing on my principles.

  Some of you have been reading my ramblings for several years now and know where I stand on most of the big issues facing our society and our nation and our families. But I should give a little background on who I am when it comes to political ideology for those who may be reading here for the first time.

   When I first set out on this road that has led me to become the outspoken pain in the butt that I am today, I was still relying on the view points and ideas of others to form my own perception of what conservatism is.  I would call into the local talk radio shows and repeat something that I had heard elsewhere, and every time I came up against an argument that I couldn’t defend against, I would go back and research and read and listen until I had formed my own opinion, and could defend my position.

  I then progressed into commenting on blogs, and in much the same fashion would have to defend my positions and point of view. I have to actually thank those who disagreed with me the most, because of them I was forced to expand my circle of knowledge and to dig deeper to back up my assertions. I have always believed that we learn more by talking to, and sometimes arguing with, those we disagree with, than we  ever learn from simply hanging out with our fellow travelers.

  I was invited to become a contributor to a blog known for being a conservative voice, it was known then as First State Politics and later became Delaware Politics.  I now had creative license to write about any topic or issue that interested me from my own point of view. I no longer had to merely comment on topics that others felt strongly about.

  I soon drew the ire of the many left leaning, or liberals if you will, that came to the sight to defend big government, social decay, and a tax and spend fiscal ideology. I was called a neo-con, a wingnut, a racist, a homophobe, a person who wanted to starve sick children because I was against entitlements, I was said to want to destroy the very planet due to my disbelief in man-made global warming.

  I was considered so radically right-wing, that I was locked out without ceremony from further contributing to this so-called conservative blog, for a post I wrote on abortion.

  I then created my own blog and over time Delaware Politics changed hands and I was again asked to join the team, with complete creative freedom. I continued to write about the issues that were important to me and that I believed were and are important to others. I think I collected a fair amount of followers, some who agreed with me and some who clearly did not. My goal has never been to have everyone agree with me, my goal is to write my opinion and to hopefully challenge others to at least consider what I have written and that some, like myself, will be challenged to go back and research and read and come back and defend their positions with facts as well as opinions. In this way we may not change each others minds, but clearly we will expand each others circle of knowledge.

  Through the many hours, days, months, and now years of debating on the radio and the blogs and in person with people, I began to form a clearer vision of what I considered to be conservatism. I have never demanded that anyone agree with my views on this, but I do believe in what I believe. I hope that over these years I have grown and expanded my own circle of knowledge, because if we fail to grow and to move forward always seeking, then we are little more than a house plant. Though my wife seems to think I am one on the weekends, especially during football season. Something about taking root in that damn chair!

  As my vision of conservatism came more and more into focus I began to realize that conservatism is neither right nor left, it’s not really even a political ideology in my view. It is more a belief in ones own self. I call myself a straight-line conservative.  In my view, conservatism is the center, not of the political ideologies, what some people call “moderate”, but at the very center of  this nation’s value system. I believe that if we apply these core conservative values to solving the troubles that confront us, that we stand our best chances of moving this nation forward.

  So what are these core values? For myself, I see them as first and fore most, personal responsibility for your day-to-day life and needs, which leads into the second core value of conservatism, wanting a limited government overseeing that which the individual cannot achieve, such as national security. I believe we are a nation of laws and we must respect those laws, and work within the frame-work that our  Founders bestowed upon us, to change those laws we do not agree with.  Though we are a nation where much is decided by majority rule, we must have the fore thought to protect the Liberties of the minorities, for some day we may find ourselves in the minority. A conservative will not twist and spin the rule of law to suit their personal situation, to attempt to make the law conform to their needs of the moment.

  I believe that a large segment of this nation, one might even say the majority of this nation, hold most of these views in some form or another. That is why I say conservatism is the center, and that when applied without bias, can, and has and will attract those who may not agree one hundred percent, but who understand that these core values are the basic building blocks of our great nation.

  My vision of conservatism is still evolving, though I keep these core values at the heart of it. The issues change from day-to-day, but the application of these core values are still the solution in my opinion, even though by applying them, I often find myself in my own personal conflict with my human nature.

 On abortion, while I believe that choice is our greatest Liberty, I do not believe that this extends to the killing of another human being. On freedom of religion, while I was appalled by the idea of building a mosque near the site of The World Trade Center, I was aware that if we infringed on the Muslim right to practice their faith, then we would be starting down a road that could lead to the loss of all religious freedoms.

  So we are now at 1,212 words and that is only the background, I hope you are sticking with me, I promise I am getting to the part of how I became a liberal.

  With my vision and belief system of conservatism in place I began to involve myself in party politics. At first it was in the form of commenting on what others were doing within the two major parties. I was highly critical of the Republican party and the direction it was going in, especially in my home state of Delaware.  I again was challenged to do more than just talk about it, to actually get involved, ironically by the same person who had thrown me off of First State Politics, I can never thank Dave Burris enough.

 I took up that challenge and began attending meetings, I found little to change my mind that the party was headed in the wrong direction. As I am wont to do, I was outspoken about the need for the GOP to be more inclusive of the more conservative view points. Of course this was met with much resistance and I was again labeled far right and fringe and radical, not from so-called liberals or Democrats, but from people within the GOP. I was told that my views on the issues would alienate the more moderate among the GOP and would actually help the liberals and Democrats.

  During this time I never suggested that anyone should be run out of the GOP, that was unless they felt so strongly that the party  had moved too far right, too far from that center of conservatism. My goal was not to remove people from the party, maybe from office, but not from the party. My goal was to bring more people into the party by creating an environment that would allow all the varying voices and factions of conservatism to be heard. Because while I believe conservatism is the true center, I recognize that there are actually factions of conservatism and that if the GOP intends to be the standard-bearer of conservatism as a whole, then we must all understand this fact and work together.

  I continued to find ways to become more involved, I showed up to candidate forums, went to county meetings, became involved in campaigns to elect people I thought shared my values, until I finally took the leap and became a member of the GOP, not just as a voter, but actually joined the Sussex County Executive Committee.

  However I am not unique in this journey, at the same time that I was making my way into the party to give voice to my views of conservatism, there were many others doing the same thing, some for the same reasons as myself, others for their own reasons. One could call this a movement I guess. I continued to be myself, to speak out, to write, and to hold to my core values. Again, many times the issues change, but the application of my values never has.

  So, where I had been labeled a right-wing radical before, where I had been called far right, I was now surrounded by people who I believed felt in large part as I did and who shared, if not all of my core values, then many of them, at least enough of them so that we could work together to move the party and the nation forward in a conservative direction.

  This brings us to how I became a liberal. While I continued on my straight line of conservatism, applying my core values to all issues, even when this went against my natural human nature and inclinations to adjust them to suit my desires, others who had come into the party at the same time, for what I thought were the same reasons, decided to turn right and to just keep turning right. The problem is, if you continue turning right you end up back where you started. In this case you end up being intolerant of the views of others.

  This is what has happened to me.  Though I pushed and shoved to get into the party, to make my voice heard, I never wanted to push others out. However, there are some who pushed and shoved to get in and now they are still pushing and shoving, not to get in, but to push and shove others out, and then to lock the door. Some of these people are people who sang high praise for my application of my core values, when such application was in agreement with them. But now, because they are willing to adjust their values to suit their desires and have given into their human nature and inclinations, they now call me a liberal.

  The political reality is that a party made up of a single faction of conservatism is not a party, it is a club. And a very small club. A party that has any chance of success must grow, it must hold to core values while understanding that a core is surrounded by many layers. Much like the core of the earth is surrounded by multiple layers of varying elements that make up the whole.

  There is currently a faction within the GOP, I believe a small faction, that is attempting to purify the party so that they become the gate keepers. This is exactly the mentality that I fought against as I became more involved, but at that time it was a faction that was of a more moderate ideology who felt they had all the answers and were unwilling to include, let alone listen to the ideas of the more conservative among the party.

  So as I said earlier, if you keep turning right, you come back to where you began, in this case we are now seeing those who kept turning right trying to push out and lock out the more moderate of the party. They have become that which they professed to be against, elitist.

  So that is how I went from being a right-wing radical, to being a liberal. Not by changing my values, but by holding to them. I have to admit, I have been guilty of labeling others, so maybe this is karma. I would hope that while over my life in general, and my political life in particular, that I have been open to new ideas, to learning and expanding my circle of knowledge, and if others are incapable or unwilling to recognize that life is not where you stand, it is where you are headed and that the road has many turns, then I feel sorry for them, because they are missing some mighty pretty scenery.

  In closing, let me say that I believe that the fact that many on the so-called left and also many on the so-called right often both agree with me and disagree with me, tells me that I am exactly where I believe conservatism lives, in the center, at the core, moving forward in a straight line. So I again thank not only those who agree with me, but those who disagree with me, because both have helped me to expand my circle of knowledge.

Watching from the cheap seats, Obama’s “Sequester Two-Step” is quite entertaining.  While not nearly as graceful as Charles Durning’s classic political footplay in “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas,” only fellow Democrat Bob Menendez puts in a better performance of the beleaguered innocent these days.

In the opening scene, Barack swaggers from the golf course past his adoring Washington press corps, all brokenhearted from his callous forgetfulness, leaving them alone at home desperately awaiting his phone call to allow them to photograph and document their beloved’s jaunt with Tiger Woods.  Dutifully, they whiningly cover his hard work to reduce the country’s financial bloat; specifically, surrounding himself with first responders he wouldn’t mind seeing laid off while blaming Republicans for acquiescing to the sequester designed by his staff. 

As the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book, “The Price of Politics” as well as in a recent column, the sequester was designed by President Obama’s White House staff.  It was “the brainchild of Jack Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors…”  Obama approved.  They believed Republicans would never let it actually happen because of the cuts to the military.  His failed evaluation of the Republican Party is exceeded only by his failed evaluations of Russia, Egypt, Libya, and Iran.

Today, many conservatives have no problem cutting Pentagon waste. So, the President squirms in front of the cameras, fuming about planes dropping from the skies, poisonous meats in mom’s grocery cart and society failing because the government will have to function on merely 97.7% of its current spending. 

What’s a petulant president to do when his trickery fails? 

Cameras! Action!  Release the prisoners! 

Homeland “Security” Director Janet Napolitano held open the gates for jailed criminal illegal immigrants and wailed as they spilled into the streets, “Look, we’re doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester, but there’s only so much I can do. I’m supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?”

This is a first-class temper tantrum! 

“See what you made me do?  Obey me or this puppy gets it!”

What additional theatrics will Obama perform to keep the attention of the media on his marketing campaign and away from empty rooms in D.C. where he should be working with Congress to fix our spending problems?

I’m expecting a TV commercial paid for by the Democratic Party featuring a cameo appearance from Maxwell the Pig gleefully squealing, “Wheeeeeeeeeeee!” while skateboarding and pinwheeling past sullen, doe-eyed federal employees in bread lines.

Republicans and Democrats should ignore both Obama and Boehner and let the departmental shortages be handled by competent managers (yes, there many in Government).   As George Will succinctly wrote, “… the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout.”

Surely competent government managers can shuffle this much around, unless President Obama compels them to fail at their jobs as Napolitano did for obvious political points.  After all, this is an alleged security professional whose expertise is demonstrated by installing millions of dollars of flat screen monitors in Walmart stores asking shoppers to report to store managers any terrorist activity they see in Walmart.  Yes, Al Qaeda in Walmart. 

President Obama sees Al Qaeda in Walmart and domestic doom and disaster in a 2.3% reduction in federal government spending.

The final scene in this multimedia comedy of errors could be taken from Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life,” where restaurant patron “Mr. Creosote,” nearly as overweight as our bloated federal credit card, is offered an after-dinner mint that is “Wafer Thin.”  He explodes in a splattering mess equivalent to the economy of Greece. 

Mr. Creosote would be renamed, “U.S. Budget.”

     Above is a copy of a flyer being passed around by supporters of Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher, to raise support and more importantly money for the sheriff’s law suit against the state of Delaware.

   It is Sheriff Christopher’s contention, that a law passed by the state legislature, limiting the office’s powers and authority,  is unconstitutional. The law suit seeks to reverse the law, and to empower the office with the power of arrest  and other powers that Sheriff Christopher believes the office is already empowered with, through the state constitution.

  This is not a post to debate whether the office of county sheriff is or is not empowered as Sheriff Christopher believes it to be. This is a post about the optics of how certain aspects of the conservative movement are perceived by the majority of the citizens within the state of Delaware, and also around the nation.

  I am merely using the issue of the sheriff’s office since it has been taken up as a cause, by those who see themselves as being the voice and face of the conservative movement.

  Let us ask ourselves how the majority of citizens will see this flyer?  It’s not about  whether they will agree with the sheriff’s position or not.

  Some may ask, how can the sheriff be doing his job, if he is caught up in this struggle to sue the state? How much time is spent soliciting support and money?

  Others may wonder why the sheriff wants these expanded powers, if as he has said on numerous occasions,  he is not interested in creating a county police force.

  Still others will see this as a power grab by a right-wing radical element, or a “BIG GOVERNMENT” faction of the conservative movement.

  The fact that Sheriff Christopher is a Republican allows Democrats and the media to paint all Republicans and conservatives,  as the latter. This is the optics that I am speaking of.

  As the Democrats and the media are allowed to paint with a broad brush the rest of the party and the conservative movement in general, it will have the effect of driving away people who otherwise would be supportive of the GOP.

  Some of the more conservative Democrat and independent voters will be concerned that the entire GOP is represented by this vocal element that sees itself as the voice and the driving force behind conservatism.

  But is this true? While many conservatives are concerned with the growing size and scope of the state and federal governments, most do not understand how expanding an already formed government agency will slow that expansion.

  There are those who see this as nothing more than conservative big government. That the sheriff’s law suit is nothing more than his seeking to grow his government agency’s powers over the people.

 Still others actually see the sheriff’s law suit as a bit fringe, if not bordering on fanatical.

  So, how does this effect the GOP and the conservative movement? In my opinion, it will have negative effects. It will make it harder to grow the party. It will drive others from the party and into the ranks of independent voters. It will label conservatives as radical and fringe.

  On a side note about this flyer, I do find the date of the money bomb interesting. It is scheduled for the day before the Superior Court  hearing for Sheriff Christopher’s law suit. Also in the flyer, Sheriff Christopher says that it will be costly to take this suit to the higher courts.

 Does this mean that Sheriff Christopher expects to lose here in Delaware? Or is he merely hopeful that this case will go on to district courts and then to the U.S. Supreme Court? Wouldn’t that be a feather in his constitutional cap?

 It might actually be a disappointment to some of his national supporters if it were decided here in Delaware. Some may feel that they want that national stage for the agenda.

  Now back to the optics of the sheriff issue. There is another date of importance mentioned in this flyer, that would be April 6, 2013. This is the date of an event titled as, “Sheriff & Citizen Summit”,  to be held at the Delaware Technical and Community College in Georgetown, De.

  Here is a link to the site supporting that event,    http://www.theamericanview.com/sheriff-and-citizen-summit-defending-liberty-by-supporting-your-constitutional-sheriff/

 The part of this announcement that causes me concern is the part where it says, “Join us for this FREE event and participate in training for the Sheriff’s Posse”.

  Really?  So what type of training? What is their idea of a posse? For what purpose are these people being trained? To what extent are they being trained?

  Again, simply from the point of view of how this will look to the majority of citizens in the state, the optics are not good.

 When you couple this statement with others that have been made during the history of this sheriff issue, such as the sheriff being your last defense against tyranny and that the sheriff will be your only defense against the federal government taking away your God-given rights, such as owning guns, then some may see this call to form a “POSSE” as a call to arms.

  It matters little if this is the case or not, it is how it will be seen by many around the state. Let’s face it, many people in the other two counties already think that we Sussex County conservatives are a little crazy and radical.

 Having a GOP elected official talking about training a “POSSE” will only add to that perception. 

  Why is it so hard for the supporters of the sheriff to recognize that the use of the word “POSSE” when talking about a sheriff, brings to mind old-time westerns, and will only add fuel to the fire of conservatives being seen as a bit out of touch with reality?

  The word “POSSE” draws to mind stagecoaches being robbed and men on horseback chasing other men on horseback through the rocky mountains of the old west.  Of cowboy hats and tin stars.

  This is the perception war that we as conservatives are battling against, and having our elected officials talking about “POSSES” will do nothing to win it.

  On a more serious note about this. If the sheriff is actually considering training citizens to be a part of some quasi-law enforcement group that will be at his disposal, to call on at his will, then we must ask, did we learn nothing from the Trayvon Martin case?

  This was the case of a young man who was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch member who was armed. 

  Do we really want to put people out in our communities who have been given the idea that they are now some sort of quasi-law enforcement group, simply because they attended  a one day seminar?

  Republicans and conservatives in Delaware are fighting an uphill battle in the war of perception. It is not that most people don’t agree with our views on limited government and lower taxes. It is not that they don’t agree with protecting traditional values and principles. I believe the majority of average citizens do agree with these ideals.

  The problem we as conservatives and Republicans are having, is that a vocal faction has been painted as being the true face of conservatism. Hell, just listen to how they, themselves talk, their one constant cry is, that they are the only true conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal or worse, I myself have been described as a NAZI. They constantly tell the world that they are the standard bearers for conservatism.

 These are the same people who speak of armed rebellion against our federal government. They speak of all elected officials as the enemy, well all except an elected sheriff of course. They seem to see the end of the world around every corner. They join groups that form posses and militias, these same groups hold forums on how to survive the coming  Armageddon by teaching their members how to grow beans and canning techniques.

 Is it any wonder that having this as the face of the conservative movement has led to a shrinking  number of people who self identify as conservative, that it has led to decline  of registered Republicans in the state?

  It is not the war of ideas that we as conservatives are losing, it is the war of perception, and it is because we are not just fighting those who clearly are our ideological enemies, but we are being sabotaged by those who should be our allies.

  It is not just that some may oppose the sheriff’s goal of expanding the office of the sheriff, it is about the way he is going about it, he is hurting the conservative movement in Delaware, a state by the way, that has enough trouble moving conservatism.

 I believe that  many of the goals that are important to people could be reached quicker if we could tone down the angry, radical rhetoric. Many times it is about how you say something, not what you say. Instead of “POSSE” maybe another word would have suited better. Instead of always talking about “TYRANNY”, maybe we could talk about an overbearing federal government. Instead of talking about growing beans to survive the end of the world, look I like beans as much as the next person, but maybe we should be talking about how to win elections so that we can actually govern, instead of, as a close friend of mine likes to say, “sitting in the stands booing”.

   Has the country, and the GOP moved past the TEA movement?  Or has the TEA movement moved too far past the main stream of  America?

   Clearly 2010 was the high water mark for the so-called TEA movement. It was a time when many people were motivated to become more involved in the political process, myself included. There was a sense that people could actually make a difference if only they would find the right candidates, and work to elect them. I still believe that to be the case.

   In many cases this actually happened, and the nation saw many new political leaders come from out of no where. In large part due to the grass-roots movement that became known as the TEA movement, or TEA party, though no TEA Party has ever existed.

   TEA stands for “taxed enough already”, and was the original idea of the TEA movement, but as I have pointed out at other times, the TEA movement has been taken over and morphed into any number of sub groups. From anti-abortion groups, to libertarian groups, to pro-second amendment groups. Pretty much any group that is anti-establishment self-identifies as TEA.

  The problem is that the TEA idea has moved so far past what it originally was, that even some who were strong TEA members in the beginning have decided to no longer be a part of the movement.

  The more professional members of the TEA movement have faded away, the doctors, lawyers and such. What is left of the movement seems to be populated by former military and or government employees. This has given rise to a more militaristic vibe to the movement. Add to this the recent second amendment issues in the news and the reaction of many whom identify themselves as TEA members, and we are seeing the growth of another sub group that seems consumed with the idea of armed defense of their rights.

  This is alarming to even straight line conservatives such as myself. There is a lot of talk about tyranny, and talk of us against them, when speaking of the federal government.

  There seems to be a fanaticism in the rhetoric coming from a vocal faction within the TEA movement. Like the fanatics on the left who see the world ending due to man’s destructive nature, the fanatics on the right see the world ending due to man’s corrupting nature.

  The fanatics on the left see man destroying the natural world.  The fanatics on the right see all things government as the destructive force in the world.

  In both cases the fringes at the left and the right have a unatural fear of these elements. They also have a view of themselves as victims. The left see themselves as victims of other people who are either more successful, or who hold some form of authority. They see themselves as victims because they have not succeeded in business or in life in general.

  The fringe right see themselves as victims of government. They believe that government’s only purpose is to stop them from praying, or to stop them from owning guns.

  In both cases the fringes of the left and the right are correct to a certain point. In some cases people are victims of others who have become successful at the expense of others, and yes government does at times seek only to control  and restrict our lives.

  However, like all fanatics these fringe groups take the grain of truth in their fears and allow it to run away with their imagination. They see monsters around every corner, and a conspiracy under every rock.

  In the beginning the TEA movement was made up of all types of people of a conservative mind. However, as the people with a more moderate ideology have removed themselves from the tag line of TEA, it has left the movement to survive with an element that is in large part fringe at best and fanatical in many respects.

  This is why I feel that the TEA movement, while still vocal, has squandered its early political capital. Unfortunately for the movement, the fringe element, as is often the case, was the loudest, and in being so, scared away not only any possible new converts, but also scared away early members who are of a more reasonable mindset.

  The question becomes for loyal Republicans, such as myself, can the GOP survive the influence of the TEA movement? In many case a negative influence.

  Here in Delaware the TEA movement had only small successes, even in 2010. We saw a handful of so-called TEA candidates win some lower offices, and also some significant primary wins state-wide, only to lose in the general election.

  Since 2010 we have seen a decline in both elected officials, and in activist who self-identify as TEA members. In 2012 we again saw challenges for some local offices in GOP primaries, most were unsuccessful, and some that were, ended up as embarrassments for several reasons. Most, simply because the candidates had nothing beyond bumper sticker rhetoric, and some because of serious personal flaws.

  The real problem, the so-called TEA movement has, is that the main stream of America no longer can identify with the things that the TEA activist portray as being their goals. Old school conservatives like myself cannot support the angry, sometimes border line hate speech that many TEA activist pass off as patriotism.

  I cannot support people who demand that their second amendment rights be upheld, and in the next breath would take away the rights of others under the first amendment by imposing school prayers. These people who tout their love of the Constitution seem to have no real understanding of the most basic aspects of it, beyond their narrow views and personal wants.

  So while the average American citizen understands that our government has out grown its original intent, they cannot abide by the idea of a violent overthrow of our government. The radical element, and the hangers-on of the TEA movement have doomed it to a slow downward spiral. The question is, will old school Republicans allow the GOP to be dragged down with it, or will we disentangle the real Grand Old Party from the so-called TEA party?

   Since President Obama’s state of the union address there has been a lot of talk over the raising of the minimum wage, and not just at the federal level.

    That’s right, once again, Delaware sees itself as the petri dish for the progressive ideas that come out of Washington. I am not sure if it is due to the fact that our vice-president is from Delaware, at least in years when there is no election, or if the Democrats in Delaware simply are without the intellectual prowess to come up with viable alternatives to the partisan rhetoric.

   So in the recent tradition of mimicking  D.C., Delaware has once again put forth a bill that would raise the state minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.75 an hour, a similar bill failed to pass just last year, yet Democrat law maker Sen. Robert Marshall of  Wilmington, has decided that it is still a good idea, and has brought it back.

  There is already growing opposition to the bill from the small business community and other lobbying groups in the business community.

  Let me start with the argument for raising the minimum wage, it seems to boil down to,  that it is impossible to raise a family on $7.25 an hour. In his state of the union address, Pres. Obama even made this statement.

“Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line,” ,  “That’s wrong.”.

 Of course that’s wrong. Who would even think that you can raise two kids on $7.25 an hour, even if we are talking about two wage earners in the family. But the question remains, is the minimum wage intended to be a livable wage for a family of four? Or is it intended to be an entry level wage for new employees?

  It would seem that Pres. Obama and the Democrat lawmakers of Delaware see it as being a livable wage, and now seek to raise it to meet the needs of a family of four. They would also tie it to the inflation level, meaning that every time that inflation rises, so would the minimum wage. More on this a little later.

  The problem we are seeing in this discussion is the total disconect from reality in the business world, by the more progressive among our political leaders. They seem to think that you can raise the minimum wage, without raising the cost to employers, and in so doing, raise the cost to consumers.

  So let us consider that we raise the minimum wage for that family of four. For a short time they may see a small rise in their standard of living, but as the cost of goods and services go up, due to the raising of the minimum wage, their standard of living will again stagnate.

  Which brings us back to the idea of tieing the minimum wage increases to the rate of inflation. It would be a self fulfilling act, since raising the minimum wage would cause infaltion, thus triggering another wage increase and so on, and so on.

  So, are our progressive friends really this blind to the forces at work in the world of business? Or is there another reason they would be in favor of this idea?

  Let us face the truth here, our Democrat friends and the more progressive among us, are clearly more aligned with labor, and so more aligned with labor unions. The one group that will clearly benefit from a rise in the minimum wage, will be labor unions. The minimum wage is the bench mark by which all union contracts are negotiated, be they federal or state. If the minimum is higher, then the union wages will be higher. If the union wages are higher, then the union dues will be higher. If the union dues are higher, then the contibutions to the political candidates by the unions will be higher, historically a higher percentage to Democrats.

  Now of course the rank and file workers in the unions will be in the same boat as the minimum wage employees, they will see a small, short term improvement, but will again level off as the cost of living goes up due to the wage increases.

  Is it just me? Or does there always seem to be a backwardness to the thinking of the so called progressives?

  In these current economic times of businesses struggling to not only make a profit, but literally to survive, why would you increase the number one expence of any business? Wages! This on the heals of raisin the health care cost through Obama care.

  Also, in the current state of unemployment, why would you make it less likely that businesses will hire more people?

  Employment is nothing but an extention of the free market system. It is based on the idea of supply and demand. It should be cylindrical.

  If there are more people seeking jobs, than there are jobs, then the employer is able to pick and choose the best people, at the most favorable wage for his business.

 If, on the other hand, there is a limited number of people seeking  employment, and a glut of jobs, then the employer will need to pay more to entice the best people to work for them.

  However, as always, our progressive friends believe that government must be involved to make all things fair and even. When in reality, government will only skew the results in favor of government and a select few.

  In my view, raising the minimum wage will have many and far reaching negative effects on employment, on businesses of all sizes, on the cost of living as well as any number of peripheral issues.

  If the minimum wage is raised I believe we will see employers hiring fewer people. The jobs that are minimum wage jobs will now go to older more experienced wage earners,  knocking the student employees out of the job market all together.

 We will see more jobs being moved over seas as the cost of labor across the board goes up due to this increase, creating even more unemployed here at home.

  As the cost of goods and services go up due to this increase, we will see more people turning to government assistance.

 The bottom line is, wages should be merit based and negotiated between the employee and the employer, be they union or non-union jobs. The government should not be involved. By artificially setting the rate of wages the government is able to put a burden upon employers that they may not be able to absorb based on the current market for their goods or services.

 A minimum wage was never ment to be a so-called “livable wage”. It was ment for new hires and part time jobs. It was intended for students with summer jobs. And yes it was ment to protect people from slave driving employers who would somehow force you to work for them for less than you wanted to. (That was sarcasm).

 I would ask my progressive friends, why stop at $8.75 0r $9.00 an hour? Neither of these will support a family of four. Why not go to $10.00 or $15.00, hell why not $20.00 0r $25.00?

  Better yet, let us stop all of this playing around with hourly wages at all? Why not set yearly minimum wages at $50,000.00 a year? No, better yet, set the yearly wage at $249,999.99, that way we will be one penny under the arbitrary number that our progressive friends see as being the evil rich people.

 This is but the latest backward thinking of the progressive mind, much like the idea that you can raise taxes on the so called rich without affecting everyone.

 That you can keep increasing spending and still lower the deficit and debt.

 But mostly, both at the federal and state level, this is but the latest pandering to the uninformed citizen. It is yet another attempt to buy votes. I urge our more conservative political leaders to resist the temptation to go along with this.