I hope that this email finds you doing well. I want to thank you for providing your report of the volunteer mobilization plan to the Executive Committee on Wednesday night. In catching up with my emails since then, I have learned of the recent death of the husband of [Name Omitted]. My heart very much goes out to her at this time; and I am going to call her to convey my personal condolence. I also have learned about the call for a special Executive Committee meeting for next week. I think frankly that my capacity to be a good and useful Chairman for the SCRCC has passed - not principally because of geographical distance, nor even because of the fact of my marriage - but because of a growing sense that there is an incongruity between my vision for where and how the party should develop locally and the vision of most of the members of the Committee. Stated succinctly, I find that there are really only two people who "get it," not only in terms of larger, political objectives, but of the need for our budget processes, online infrastructure replacing the old headquarters, not allowing the party to be a weak company in the personal army of a candidate, etc: yourself and [Name Omitted]. There are several good persons who have the potential of "getting it" in the future, if they are well groomed now. I am thinking of the persons that we have considered for positions as deputy Volunteer Mobilization Officers. Hopefully, they will become the Officers of the next term, so that the SCRCC may continue to find itself on a positive trajectory. I have learned a lesson from this experience, which will be worthwhile to remember in my future endeavors. It is as follows: people only learn, when they really invest themselves in the effort. While I am far from perfection when it comes to communicating my vision for a better political party in Sonoma County, I nevertheless have done so on many occasions - in Chairman's Remarks at the beginning of Central Committee meetings; in emails which I have written to the members over the years; in countless one on one conversations. Still, I find that many of the members (and virtually all of the Officers in this term) fall back to the preconceptions of the old party, as if momentarily glimpsing a new idea, then proceeding to forget it altogether by resuming their old habits. How many members actually have taken the time to study the various documents, which we have put forward over the past few years to articulate a new vision for the party? How many actually read your statement outlining the budget process (and explaining why such is needed, if we are going to have our limited means meet political goals)? How many read your Volunteer Mobilization Plan, beyond a cursory acknowledgment that it is there? I am of the mind that the numbers are fairly small and virtually nonexistent among the old guard. The reason: In the end, most members do not take their participation with the SCRCC all that seriously. If this were their family or their private business endeavor, then they would take the time and the energy to consider such matters thoughtfully and to make certain of the implementation of the new vision. It is not that they do not care or have an interest in revamping Republican Party prospects locally. The fact that they show up at our meetings testifies to their care and interest. Rather, it is that they do not see the civic realm as truly their arena. They see themselves as bystanders - reacting with cheers or jeers to what the gladiators may be doing at any given time, but sensing that the final outcome of the fray is in the thumb of Caesar, not their own. As such, they will become animated (some more so than others), but not invested. They will be involved, but not committed. Indeed, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I think that is the heart of the problem, not only in Sonoma County, but in our Republic. In the Old Testament vision, the man ultimately is responsible for his way in this world. He is able to have faith in the covenant that God has made with Israel; but, in paraphrasing here President Lincoln, as a man profits from the lash of the whip against his brothers, so must he spill his own blood to pay back the same. This must be, because the man in the end is responsible. He has been given dominion over this world; and even in being banished from Eden, God has not removed that authority - and the responsibility that must come with it. It is only the fool who thinks that he may be simply "involved" in his own world, that he may leave the "heavy lifting" to the sages or the caesars. God invariably teaches such men, in ways not usually pleasant to our own sensibilities, that they are rather to be "invested," or to be damned. Men are either firmly rooted in the soil, or burned away as unwanted chaff. In the Gnostic vision, the man is not responsible for his way in this world. He is lowly with which to begin - a spirit imprisoned within matter and thus hardly capable of knowing where to begin or what to do. Then, add the fact that this whole world is not the loving creation of God, who then entrusts us with its dominion, but rather an elaborate prank foisted upon all of us by the demiurge. It is the powers and principalities that reign, not men; at best, men may be "involved" in this world, as their efforts can have no moral significance, when said demiurge is chiefly responsible. Even then, only a few men may be "involved" in a manner that is "noteworthy" - indeed, only one speaks with the "voice," the rest of us are suited for no more than raising our right arms in unison and screaming "heil hitler" from the benches. My sense is that too many are gnostics, when it comes to their civic lives. They are able to be "animated," or "involved," but in the end they see themselves as imprisoned shades and thus fail to be rooted into the field presented to them. As they are not rooted, so their efforts will yield no harvest. Should we be surprised then that they will grumble that "there is no progress," or "nothing is being done," or some such diatribe? It is Caesar who reigns, not them. If Caesar offers colorful games, then they cheer. If not, then they jeer and wait anxiously for the Praetorian Guard to replace him with another. There has been a glaring failure of leadership on my part. My worst failure: not recruiting a slate of responsible men to run for Central Committee at the last election and therefore not offering to said SCRCC at least a chance at being more than just a monthly meeting place for the "animated" and the "involved." I realize now that I cannot lead simply by spoken or written words. I cannot lead even by being an example. The bystanders will happily watch an actor on the stage, so long as he keeps them entertained; but that does not mean that they will get off of their seats, jump onto the stage, and join him in the scene. Rather, if in fact I am to lead (rather than playing the part on a stage), then I must invest myself in the effort with and among those similarly invested. I must be committed to the cause, putting my body and soul where my words claim to aspire, and those for whom I serve must be in their own manner similarly committed. Then, there is the officer and the soldier; until then, there is nothing but play and occasional farce. Thank you for taking the time to read these comments. I shall desire your feedback, as in fact you may be so inclined to provide. You are my friend and teacher, and I am indebted.

As I had predicted - and not with any relish - your marriage and the relocation of your life to the South Bay (Peninsula?) has produced some dilemmas for you (distance IS an issue) and also for the Central Committee. I am not surprised that this was pointed out by [Name Omitted], who raised concerns about you at the recent Executive Committee meeting. I was there, as you know, as a visitor, but [Name Omitted] didn't hesitate to bring forth his critique of your leadership for discussion. I believe that he hit a responsive nerve in that group which was seconded by [Name Omitted] and polished by [Name Omitted] who advised the Committee that you had registered at [Name Omitted] home address in Rohnert Park. [Name Omitted] was clearly playing a role from a script written by others. [Name Omitted] came with a bomb to drop. Bringing you down when you were in a weak position to resist was what they could do to restore some pitiful control over the Central Committee. They are all three good at creating chaos and little else. I don't mean to say that the concern over your status is solely a matter of internal politics. It is, however, a fortuitous factor for those looking for an opening to restore the SCRCC to its former levels of clubby irrelevance. Will they succeed? I think not. There is a core of common sense individuals there, supplemented by fringie activists who will not tolerate inaction. That is a coalition with which I can work. True, they have no idea WHAT action should be pursued, but [Name Omitted] could never be elected to the Executive group were she to run today or in the future. [Name Omitted] has lost every contest in the Central Committee and people have tired of him as well, quietly concluding that he is all about himself. [Name Omitted] is an old lady who should be treated kindly. What this means is that the SCRP is up for grabs. You are effectively out of the picture. I am opting out after this year, but encouraging some pretty good people to fill in the hole that is left - as much as possible. I see my role as one of encouraging a shift in leadership, even if it is one filled with risk; for it has always been a principle I have embraced that to risk an unknown evil is sometimes wiser than remaining in the rut produced by a well-known evil. Keeping things in motion is a better option than allowing them to quiet down. I think that you should resign, but not with bitter words on your lips. You have every reason to say that your private happiness could no longer be sacrificed. In a life which badly needed the balancing element of some kind of family and social connections, these have trumped your passion for politics. That is a Republican perspective and is honorable. Your attempts to stay at the helm in spite of the challenges of distance and distraction are a sign of your loyalty amd sense of duty, but, it seems to me, reflect a compromise of common sense and truth that could become an embarrassment and that barely skirt around the unethical in a way ill-befitting a clergyman and a community leader. Likewise, such compromise could threaten the reputation of the SCRCC insofar as you and I and [Name Omitted], and a few others, have endeavored to build that reputation up. People are appearing who want to join in. The drought is showing signs of coming to an end. I once told you that from my perspective, our goal should be to build the structure and the habits of the party so that when the day might come when the people in these parts needed a force to defend their Republic, it would be there, and would be ready to receive the interest and the participation of new leadership. Our work here was never about solving everything on our own watch. It was about renewing the idea of a party in the minds of the citizens. We have moved that project a considerable distance down the road; but one would not know that unless instead of focussing on the stairway up halfway to the top of the Washington Monument, we focussed on the steps below us to see the distance we have already come. Perhaps I would be better on that since I saw it when the disaster you discovered was already up a few notches to the good from the cataclysmic wreck I found in 1998. Of course you are right about the people on the SCRCC. There are some real morons there, no doubt (though they do not make up the majority as it might sometimes seem); but "what went ye into the wilderness to see - a man dressed in soft raiment?" It is the task of political leaders to discover the heart of the critical issues of the day, to articulate that heart to the people, and then to guide them to the right and true answers. In short, I think that while we can measure the tasks before us, which would lead any reasoning mind to be daunted by their prospect, we need not feel unfulfilled. The SCRCC is now participating in challenging discussions on real political questions. It contemplates complex approaches to the procedural aspects of self governance and comes to sensible conclusions. It exhibits an interest in fiscal discipline and recognizes the foolhardy, the spendthrift, and the lackadaisical excuse-monger for what he is. The oligarchy is mostly sidelined and shown up for what they are, and the easy enemy of the left is everywhere in power without the gloss of moderation, which was never their true inclination, to hide behind. Leadership is always critical of itself; but it is also gracious in giving emphasis on the good to be achieved; not the failure to be avoided. By emphasizing the good accomplished and pointing to the next and foreseeable step in building on that good, we give the follower something to attend to, something to pursue, something to embrace which will engage them not in their sense of weakness, but will encourage them in their sense of strength. I hope you will do this. You can always express the other sentiments to me because I am a life-long leader and take the reflection well and turn it into improved action. Others, however, depend upon leaders to build them up, not tear them down. I regret your departure because you were one of perhaps three people I know in this entire county who was a good conversationalist and thinker. I hope that something of that remains between us even though you will now be appropriately focussed on your new social connections. I think, too, that you should find a way to stay involved in the Republican Party. There is, of course, RNI. You may have more time for that now. There is also a little matter of challenging the CRP to join Republican voters in this state instead of assuming that the voters are obliged to line up behind the CRP. So much to do. So little time to do it in! As a former boss of mine said at a departure party when I took a sabbatical to attend the Army War College for a year, "Don't leave mad, just leave!" As [Name Omitted] likes to say, "I leave the big moves in my life to God and just trust in Him." That might be a good way for you to look at your sojourn in Sonoma County. As for me, I will now end my years on the Central Committee with another brewing mess to fix up. What's new? Some of us go and some of us stay. In the end, we must all trust in Him wherever we are and wherever we think we are going. Hope there is something in here which you will find useful. All good wishes.

I am writing now to inform you of my formal resignation as Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Central Committee, effective immediately. It has been indeed my sincere honor and privilege to have served my community in this manner, since first being elected to this position in December 2006. There have been a number of notable accomplishments during this time, with which we may all be proud. Internally, we continued and expanded upon the goal of orienting our party away from being a "Republican social club" and towards becoming an "activist, political party," one that took stands on important issues and played a more meaningful role in local, non-partisan campaigns. In so doing, we were able to take our limited resources and see results, such as in helping to beat back a parcel tax in the Gravenstein Union School District, where in the past we might have been bystanders to such efforts. We became furthermore the voice for conservative principles, when sometimes our own state Republican Party refused to budge. We were the first County Republican Central Committee to censure Governor Schwarzenegger, when he came out for the largest sales tax increase in state history; and it was in part because of our stand against the notorious Propositions 1A through 1E, that the state Republican Party was forced to act against these proposed tax increases. We always put our loyalty to principle above loyalty to the state or national party identity; and, for that reason, we became an example to County Republican Central Committees way beyond our geographical area. We were also the first County Republican Central Committee to come out officially for the defense of traditional marriage, in endorsing Proposition 8. As party Chairman, and as the County Director for the Proposition 8 campaign, I may attest to the importance of our own party effort in standing for the will of the people against an out of control Supreme Court. Locally, we took this activist orientation and became a consistent voice for middle class taxpayers. This meant that we might at times ruffle the feathers of both the out of control, Marxist, big spenders and the oligarchic developers looking to rape the treasury for their private interests. In so doing, we earned enemies and, that most rarest of commodities for Republicans in Sonoma County, relevancy. It is said that in politics, one should be judged not by ones friends (who are all too often fleeting), but by ones foes. While Chairman, I am proud to say that we found the right assortment of persons and interests in both camps. Why am I resigning? The reason is quite simple. Because of my recent marriage, and new opportunities increasingly removed from Sonoma County, I am not in the geographical area sufficiently to provide the leadership needed for this year. While I shall maintain my rent of a room at the home of [Name Omitted] mother in Rohnert Park (for those persons who are newer to our Central Committee, [Name Omitted] is a friend who once led a CRA unit in Santa Rosa), it is indeed the case that I shall find myself more often than not pursuing business outside of the county and state. Soon, I shall be hosting a conservative talk radio show out of a station back east (though recorded locally); and if it is successful, then it will be nationally syndicated. The very real prospect of promotion at conferences around the nation will keep me far too removed from the local scene. I am also finishing a book, which is set to be published; and my focus on that task likely will consume much of my time in the coming months. Nevertheless, even as I move on, I shall reflect most joyously upon my time as Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Central Committee. It has been a grand experience for me; and I pray that overall the party, and the broader community, have benefitted as well from my past service. In the end, all such measures pass, as God and time remain the only constants (until that dawning hour when even time passes and there is only and abundantly God and man). It is in that reality that we may glimpse our intrinsic equality with one another; any other view is a gnostic illusion, full of bombast and conceit. Our glory is to maintain this truth in our civic life and therefore to keep the flame of liberty, however enfeebled, until our sons take on the tasks before them. Let us pray always for the grace to do what is rightful to that end. Several notes: On Monday, I shall mail this letter with my signature to the headquarters of the Sonoma County Republican Central Committee, so that this formal resignation properly is in writing. Also, I shall mail back my outer and inner door keys to the same headquarters at that time. Finally, I am storing some items belonging to the Sonoma County Republican Central Committee in my personal storage space in Petaluma. I shall be happy to keep the items there until the end of 2010, so that the headquarters may remain free from the undue clutter, if that remains the will of the new leadership.

Michael Erickson receives a letter from a second friend. The second friend asks him if he has re-registered to San Mateo County and will consider running for the County Republican Central Committee there. In so doing, the second friend makes the point that the Central Committee there needs "adult supervision." Michael Erickson replies as follows: It is good to hear from you. I hope that you are doing well. In answer to your questions, as I am now living in Redwood City, I have resigned from my office as Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Central Committee. I am going to re-register to San Mateo County. In regards to future plans, I am focusing presently on a number of activities, including the completion of a book to be published on the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence. I am also in consultation with several men about forming a political action committee. Therefore, I have not given any thought as of yet to the local, political situation.

I have done a lot of thought about the...poor grassroots activity of the San Mateo Republican Party and CRA. Unfortunately I have not come up with any inspiration - and even if I did - no one follows me. The San Mateo Central Committee has made improvements since the [Name Omitted] regime. We make quorum for our meetings and retired a debt. We elected an executive committee with some energetic young blooded people. Unfortunately they put their agendas and egos ahead of the party. Couple that with their inexperience we now have a divided contenious dysfunctional group. This is extremely troubling in an election year at a time when the tides have changed and it is OK to admit to being a Republican in occupied San Mateo County. We have had some good attendence at a number of our meetings but have run them off because the Chair discredited his secretary and 1st vice chair publicly and they reacted publicly during the January meeting. Great timing - we should have been very upbeat and getting people involved with the Scott Brown efforts. Also a number of 9/12 people called in and volunteered to be precinct captains. None of these names were turned over to me as the grass roots chair. I no longer have that responsibility and no one has replaced me. On the 9/12ers, it is going to be interesting how this group and the old line Republicans play out. My take is it will be similar to the founding of the Constitution. They could not come together until Benjamin Franklin suggested a prayer. Will we have a prayer this time?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the situation presently in the San Mateo County Republican Central Committee. I have no impression of my own to share on the particulars, since I have been uninvolved in such matters. Nevertheless, as I have had some years of experience at the level of County Republican Central Committee politics (first Santa Clara County, when I was still in college and law school; more recently, Sonoma County), I shall be able to provide some general observations that may be helpful. In terms of the dysfunction rampant at the leadership level, it is almost always a symptom of disinterest, if not outright malaise, at the Central Committee level. Stated briefly, if said average member took their own Central Committee as seriously as they would their family or private business affairs, then they would never countenance the shenanigans and lame imbecility all too often exhibited by their own Officers. Now, on the surface, many of these people may seem very "interested," in that they show up at meetings regularly, do at least some amount of volunteer work around election time, and watch FOX News a lot (which, it is sad to say, passes all too often for "activism" by the "arm chair warrior" set). Yet there is a tangible difference between being "interested" or even "involved" and being "committed." A man who is "interested" or "involved" ultimately does not see himself as at the center of action; he reserves much of his personal time and energy, because in the end he believes that someone else really is going to clean up the mess (or, more likely, that those making the mess in the first place are the only ones with real power and as such essentially unable to be defeated, except in a most minor or temporary fashion). It is the aged old axiom about death and taxes. If indeed higher taxes (and all other government induced ills) are really as inevitable as death, then the real power is not in "us" but in "them," whatever "them" at any given time happens to be (King George III, Nicholas Biddle, Federal Reserve Chairmen, US Congress, permanent bureaucracy, etc). There is a theological component to this matter, which should not be ignored, even if we are all too often inclined as Americans to disassociate theology from politics, as much as ones "private conscience" from the "public square." Indeed, I contend that that is a false and not necessary dichotomy. In my mind, the private is and should be public, and vice versa; such an awareness is at the heart of what it means to be free and in exercise of ones liberty, but I digress. Returning to the theological observation, we are living presently in an age virtually consumed in the conceits of Gnosticism. I do not have time now to go into that teaching in much detail. For now, it is sufficient to say that Gnostics are dualists, separating life, as is lived privately and publicly, into the "flesh" and the "spirit." The "flesh" is unreal, or at least insignificant, because it is temporal and inevitably decays. I am not just thinking here of the obvious expressions of "flesh," like bodies and things; but of human made institutions, laws and cultures. As these are temporal, and likely to pass whenever the next horde of Goths in fact storm the walls of Rome, they are illusory, or insignificant. Only "spirit," that is elusive, and only "known" by an elite of "insiders" with the special "gnosis" (empowering knowledge, as observed by those masses who do not have it in them as if it is a "magic" or a "political charisma") really matters. Those whom we think have this "gnosis," and are thereby able to discern and perhaps to some extent even manipulate the spirit that guides the universe (or, in a political context, the historical zeitgeist at work over the affairs of common men), most of us will invest with power, sometimes even messianic adoration (as Obama supporters do towards him). It is as if we are the masses watching the gladiator games, able to cheer and to jeer, as the case may be, but in the end unable to decide what happens to the warriors in the arena. That decision vests with the up or down turned thumb of the only man who really counts in that arena, the one with the "gnosis," the Caesar. Lest we think that we are much passed that behavior, consider how many conservatives are waiting for "another Reagan" to come along, whether it be Sara Palin, or Newt Gingrich, or some billionaire somewhere, who will sweep in and "take care of the mess." In the meantime, these conservatives do a little here or there, but mostly they just bid their time, waiting for that "great one" to arrive finally on the scene. They really do not see themselves as important actors on the stage, if I may mix metaphors, but rather as audience members. Politics is someone elses game really, or so they believe; they are there just to clap on cue. This is what I mean by said "interested" or "involved" man, rather than said "committed" one. By contrast, said "committed" one, as a matter of temperament first and then observable behavior, not only sees himself as a real actor on the stage, but as having a moral responsibility, or even a sacred honor, to do what needs to be done to correct the wrongs within his sphere of influence. He not only will view himself as significant but will act significantly. Furthermore, because he realizes his energy and time to be important commodities (because he knows that he really matters, and is not just a faceless member of the mass in the audience), he will not suffer fools gladly, like the incompetents who all too often become "leaders" at the level of County Central Committees and such. He will know that he is a moral agent, because his decisions matter not only with regards to his own life, but with regards to the broader life of the civic community; as such, this hypothetical, "committed" man will act with greater, moral clarity, demanding redresses when necessary, removing recalcitrant fools, following up with the real opportunities that are going to turn up from time to time (like the 9/12ers who wanted to become precinct captains in San Mateo County). If he does not know himself to be a moral agent, because he thinks that "someone else" or just "history" is really in charge of his own destiny, and of the larger destiny of the city, state, and nation, then he will be morally lax, not bothering to demand or to exhort. When that happens, and in our Gnostic culture it happens most often, then there is little rush to remove stupidity or to reform; indeed, we pat ourselves on our backs for not "speaking divisively" or for "being patient," which really are just excuses for inaction. What I am describing here is not new or novel; indeed, it is at the heart of the concerns addressed by Saint Paul in his two Epistles to the Corinthians (and also in the Epistle of Pope Clement to the same Corinthian Church a half century after Saint Paul wrote his letters). What might be considered "new" is to see how this insight refers not just to "religious" matters, as if the realm of religion or theology only pertains to our private lives, but to political matters. If that first generation of Christians stumbled so badly in Corinth, because they failed to be morally responsible for themselves and their brethren, and allowed fools thus to run the show, then I think that the same may be said of far too many of our brethren in County Republican - and Democrat - Central Committees. There is another, related observation. I mentioned earlier the problem of "arm chair warriors" who remain on the sidelines, more or less, and who substitute watching or talking about the matters that they see on their cable news or internet venues for real action within their local spheres of influence. Let us be blunt on this point. They are caught up with FOX News, and the blogosphere, because these edited, fast paced media outlets offer entertainment, rather than serious analysis. These media outlets offer the modern version of the gladiator games or, whenever the "personalities" take front and center over the "substance" (Gingrich versus Clinton; Limbaugh versus Reid; Palin versus virtually every talking head of the Left), a more sophisticated version of professional wrestling; and the masses, seeing themselves as not important actors but as merely waiting around for the Caesars of the world either to turn up or down their decisive thumbs, simply wallow in the fun of it all. If you wonder at my rather negative assessment here, then ask yourself: How many actual members of the San Mateo County Republican Central Committee, or any of such other County Central Committees for that matter, know anything about what is happening in their own city councils, or even when the city councils meet? How many of them are volunteering to work on municipal or county commissions, where their conservative principles might actually bear some fruits locally? What we are up against in not just a few bad leaders here or there. For the most part, these hapless Central Committee Officers are merely symptoms of a much deeper problem in our political culture. The real problem is Gnosticism and the general lack of seriousness, and a concomitant lack of moral responsibility and clarity, among many of our fellow citizens. The solution is to sweep out the dreck and replace them with those few souls who really exhibit a moral seriousness about acting decisively in the world. These souls are very few and far between and are not necessarily to be found among the 9/12ers or other such groups (since a lot of these groups are afflicted with their own version of the "arm chair warrior" syndrome described earlier). The good news is that, given the relative inactivity of the many, a lot will be done by the few, so long as the "many" are in no position to obstruct them. That means that, first and foremost, there must be a thorough house cleaning; then, serious people will have an arena in which to act for the common good. The "house cleaning" of course will be achieved by electing the right people to the Central Committee - preferably businesspeople or others who have had to meet a payroll and thus show seriousness in their affairs. It is, in my experience, not good to elect only a handful of these "right people," while leaving most of the Committee still in the hands of the dreck, because in time the dreck inevitably tears down the resolve of serious people (as you observed from the January meeting). Rather, in order to be effective, a large number of these "right people" need to be elected en masse - so as to take over the culture of the institution by their sheer numbers. If that means that a silent recruitment occurs over several election cycles, until enough "right people" are finally on board to run en masse, then that would be my recommendation. In the meantime, until a new Central Committee could be effected, I would limit my interaction with the dreck; and I certainly would not introduce any new talent to them, lest they be turned off from any future political activism by the callous or stupid behavior all too often on display. The art then is in recruiting and in keeping the "right people" on board in some meaningful, ongoing work (as it is axiomatic that an unused volunteer is soon a former volunteer), but not formally inside of the Central Committee structure (where their resolves would be beaten down by the dreck), until an en masse takeover may be orchestrated. I would urge you to give consideration to that question, as it may be an efficacious use of your time and energy for the greater good.

Dear Michael, We shall all miss you! And I shall miss you as well. As you stated, you have taught us all what it means to stand up and not be a social club. This is a mighty thing. I wish you well and hope that you and Sharon will be well. I hope to hear good things about the direction you are taking. You had the strength we needed to make a difference. I am not certain the leadership we will have will maintain the course you had set. Washington's Farewell Address should be read more often.... Thank you.