If you would like to contact me, please email me at donguymon@msn.com.
I am happy to answer any question you may have.
Don
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Column on Illegal Immigration
Below is an op ed piece I have written on illegal immigration:
Stop Illegal Immigration
By Don Guymon
In the 2008 Legislative Session, both chambers passed S.B. 81 an omnibus illegal immigration bill. The bill had several good measures to curb illegal immigration. Unfortunately both chambers put off implementation until 2009 so further research can be done on illegal immigration.
It is surprising that individuals would feel the need to study the issue of illegal immigration further. Why do we need to wait a year when this has been studied for many years? Is not the fact that individual here illegally enough?
S.B. 81 would require county sheriffs to verify the immigration status of foreign nationals; prohibited the alcoholic beverage control commission from granting liquor or private club licenses to individuals who are not in the country illegally; prohibits local entities from keeping their law enforcement officers from enforcing immigration laws and requires employers who contract with the state to verify whether their workers are legal to work in the United States.
This bill was pretty straightforward, so why do we need to study it further?
It was not just that implementation of S.B. 81 was put off until 2009. Several other good bills died. Bills that would have prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving instate tuition and stopped the issuance of driver privilege cards died and not for the first time.
Many say that the issue of illegal immigration is a federal issue and the state should not deal with it. Yes it is a federal issue. At a time when we are fighting a war on terror, it makes little sense that our borders are not under control.
But the state also has a role to play.
If the state is providing driver privilege cards to those who are here illegally, is not the state aiding and abetting and abiding the breaking of federal law?
If the state is giving preferential treatment to the children of illegal immigrants over students from other states who want to study at public schools, is the state not aiding and abetting the breaking of federal law?
Many argue that these are good men and women simply here to make a better life for their family. Good intentions aside, good people do not break the law.
For example MSNBC recently reported that nine million people had inaccurate social security taxes. While some of these may be mistaken, many are because of illegal aliens stealing people’s identification.
The recent raid of illegal immigrants at Swift Meatpacking plants found over 1,200 individuals arrested for identity theft.
Illegal immigration is an issue that our lawmakers are going to have to deal with whether they like it or not.
During the impeachment of President Clinton, we heard that this must happen because we as a nation believed in the rule of law. If we are still a nation that believes in the rule of law, we can begin by insuring that all individuals arrive in this country legally
The failure of lawmakers to enact S.B. 81 in 2008 shows that many do not take the problem of illegal immigration seriously. Legal citizens will continue to have crowded classrooms, higher health care, and the inconvenience of having to restore their identity because this problem will continue.
If citizens do not stay vigilant, S.B. 81 will be gutted during the 2009 session, and Utah will continue to do very little to curb this growing epidemic.
Stop Illegal Immigration
By Don Guymon
In the 2008 Legislative Session, both chambers passed S.B. 81 an omnibus illegal immigration bill. The bill had several good measures to curb illegal immigration. Unfortunately both chambers put off implementation until 2009 so further research can be done on illegal immigration.
It is surprising that individuals would feel the need to study the issue of illegal immigration further. Why do we need to wait a year when this has been studied for many years? Is not the fact that individual here illegally enough?
S.B. 81 would require county sheriffs to verify the immigration status of foreign nationals; prohibited the alcoholic beverage control commission from granting liquor or private club licenses to individuals who are not in the country illegally; prohibits local entities from keeping their law enforcement officers from enforcing immigration laws and requires employers who contract with the state to verify whether their workers are legal to work in the United States.
This bill was pretty straightforward, so why do we need to study it further?
It was not just that implementation of S.B. 81 was put off until 2009. Several other good bills died. Bills that would have prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving instate tuition and stopped the issuance of driver privilege cards died and not for the first time.
Many say that the issue of illegal immigration is a federal issue and the state should not deal with it. Yes it is a federal issue. At a time when we are fighting a war on terror, it makes little sense that our borders are not under control.
But the state also has a role to play.
If the state is providing driver privilege cards to those who are here illegally, is not the state aiding and abetting and abiding the breaking of federal law?
If the state is giving preferential treatment to the children of illegal immigrants over students from other states who want to study at public schools, is the state not aiding and abetting the breaking of federal law?
Many argue that these are good men and women simply here to make a better life for their family. Good intentions aside, good people do not break the law.
For example MSNBC recently reported that nine million people had inaccurate social security taxes. While some of these may be mistaken, many are because of illegal aliens stealing people’s identification.
The recent raid of illegal immigrants at Swift Meatpacking plants found over 1,200 individuals arrested for identity theft.
Illegal immigration is an issue that our lawmakers are going to have to deal with whether they like it or not.
During the impeachment of President Clinton, we heard that this must happen because we as a nation believed in the rule of law. If we are still a nation that believes in the rule of law, we can begin by insuring that all individuals arrive in this country legally
The failure of lawmakers to enact S.B. 81 in 2008 shows that many do not take the problem of illegal immigration seriously. Legal citizens will continue to have crowded classrooms, higher health care, and the inconvenience of having to restore their identity because this problem will continue.
If citizens do not stay vigilant, S.B. 81 will be gutted during the 2009 session, and Utah will continue to do very little to curb this growing epidemic.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Consistency
Below is a column I wrote for a past GrassRoots report:
Consistency.
If we could achieve this one word in Utah politics, it would be a great day for this state.
Opponents of H.B. 148 which introduced educational vouchers to the state lamented the cost. Yet 30 of the 48 House and Senate members who voted against vouchers had no problem giving $15 million of the citizen’s money to build a soccer stadium.
If sending every dollar possible to educate our children is the real reason to oppose vouchers why is the $15 million soccer stadium an exception?
If it is so important that every possible dollar be spent on classroom spending, why did 34 of the 37 representatives who voted against vouchers oppose insuring more money was funneled into the classroom? H.B. 193 would have required that 65% of school funding be spent on instruction. The bill was defeated in the House 24-49-2.
One would think that if the state was not spending enough money to teach its children then we would be attempting to streamline our system. Yet S.B 49, which creates extended day kindergarten in the state, passed overwhelmingly. The bill carries a $30 million price tag for the first year.
Many of our politicians proclaim the pro-life mantle and talk about the importance of protecting the unborn. H.B. 235 would have been a test case to challenge Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. In a year of record spending increases, it was decided that the unborn was not as high a priority as a soccer stadium for a millionaire.
Being consistent when it comes to principals is not easy. This year H.B. 84 which created the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund passed both chambers by large margins. The money comes from increased fines for those convicted of DUI’s. Certainly those who commit this crime should be punished, but is creating another government program the way to go? What happens if we are ever able to rid the society of drunk driving, how will this continue to be funded? For those who decry socialized medicine, isn’t such a bill a step in the direction of a government run system?
This year it became more difficult to purchase cough and cold medicines. Yet nothing was done to curb the attack on our borders of illegal immigration.
Of course, the lack of consistency is not only absent in our state politics. On a national level, conservatives are falling all over themselves to support candidates who only recently were pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.
Our lack of consistency will eventually hurt this state. Currently our economy is growing and unemployment is very low. Yet government has grown larger than the rate of inflation and according to the Utah Taxpayers Association has grown on average 9% over the past two years.
What will happen to this state when the economic good times end? It may not be a popular notion but every Economics 101 class in college teaches of economic cycles with times of growth such as we are in now, but times of correction when the economy does not fair as well.
When the economy goes bad, as it inevitably will, who will pay for the increased state spending? How will we fund full day kindergarten or a soccer stadium and the myriad of other programs which have been recently implemented?
While our lawmakers should be praised for recent tax cuts, ultimately the lack of fiscal restraint will ultimately lead to an increased tax burden. Because when faced with cutting spending or raising taxes, unfortunately our elected officials have been remarkably consistent. Please hold onto your wallets. That will be the price we will pay for inconsistency in our state government.
Consistency.
If we could achieve this one word in Utah politics, it would be a great day for this state.
Opponents of H.B. 148 which introduced educational vouchers to the state lamented the cost. Yet 30 of the 48 House and Senate members who voted against vouchers had no problem giving $15 million of the citizen’s money to build a soccer stadium.
If sending every dollar possible to educate our children is the real reason to oppose vouchers why is the $15 million soccer stadium an exception?
If it is so important that every possible dollar be spent on classroom spending, why did 34 of the 37 representatives who voted against vouchers oppose insuring more money was funneled into the classroom? H.B. 193 would have required that 65% of school funding be spent on instruction. The bill was defeated in the House 24-49-2.
One would think that if the state was not spending enough money to teach its children then we would be attempting to streamline our system. Yet S.B 49, which creates extended day kindergarten in the state, passed overwhelmingly. The bill carries a $30 million price tag for the first year.
Many of our politicians proclaim the pro-life mantle and talk about the importance of protecting the unborn. H.B. 235 would have been a test case to challenge Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. In a year of record spending increases, it was decided that the unborn was not as high a priority as a soccer stadium for a millionaire.
Being consistent when it comes to principals is not easy. This year H.B. 84 which created the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund passed both chambers by large margins. The money comes from increased fines for those convicted of DUI’s. Certainly those who commit this crime should be punished, but is creating another government program the way to go? What happens if we are ever able to rid the society of drunk driving, how will this continue to be funded? For those who decry socialized medicine, isn’t such a bill a step in the direction of a government run system?
This year it became more difficult to purchase cough and cold medicines. Yet nothing was done to curb the attack on our borders of illegal immigration.
Of course, the lack of consistency is not only absent in our state politics. On a national level, conservatives are falling all over themselves to support candidates who only recently were pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.
Our lack of consistency will eventually hurt this state. Currently our economy is growing and unemployment is very low. Yet government has grown larger than the rate of inflation and according to the Utah Taxpayers Association has grown on average 9% over the past two years.
What will happen to this state when the economic good times end? It may not be a popular notion but every Economics 101 class in college teaches of economic cycles with times of growth such as we are in now, but times of correction when the economy does not fair as well.
When the economy goes bad, as it inevitably will, who will pay for the increased state spending? How will we fund full day kindergarten or a soccer stadium and the myriad of other programs which have been recently implemented?
While our lawmakers should be praised for recent tax cuts, ultimately the lack of fiscal restraint will ultimately lead to an increased tax burden. Because when faced with cutting spending or raising taxes, unfortunately our elected officials have been remarkably consistent. Please hold onto your wallets. That will be the price we will pay for inconsistency in our state government.
The Politics of Hate
Below is a commentary I wrote for GrassRoots after a past legislative session:
The Politics of Hate
By: Don Guymon
Hate is the strongest word in the English language, but it has become the favorite word of many on the left.
For the ninth straight year, hate crimes legislation reared its ugly head. News media outlets attempted to whip Utahns into frenzy by making them believe that they are all at risk if hate crime laws do not pass. Stories fill the air and pages of our newspapers about individuals who have suffered persecution. These stories routinely fail to acknowledge that these deplorable acts are already against the law.
When this legislation fails each session, these same institutions accuse those who opposed this legislation of being hateful.
Yet the accusations of hate do not stop there. Take for example last November’s debate over Amendment Three, which declared that marriage in the state of Utah would be between a man and a woman. This is how marriage has been defined since the beginning of time, yet many in Utah just recently came to the knowledge that if you believe in traditional values you must be guilty of hate.
It is ironic that some people supported both Amendment Three and hate crimes. What is truly scary is how easily the term hate was thrown out. One is left to ask the questions of those on the left, “If you supported Amendment Three, are you guilty of a hate crime?”
When one looks around the world, one sees instances where those who have stood up for traditional values have faced criminal prosecution. While we have not seen this yet in the United States, it appears that many would place us down the slippery slope where if one professes any moral values they risk being thrown in jail.
Yet, the labeling of hate doesn’t stop there. We recently learned that if one supports public property rights and opposes the transfer of tax dollars from the public to private enterprise one is also hateful.
If one supports the rule of law then they must be a hateful person. Individuals who believe only lawful citizens should receive privileges such as driver’s licenses and instate tuition are routinely labeled as hateful and racist.
Sen. Curt Bramble (R-UT) sponsored S.B. 227, which reformed Redevelopment Agencies. RDA abuse has run rampant in many years, as individuals have seen their property taken to be most confiscated to build large retail projects. Another project targeted for RDA money was a soccer stadium for Salt Lake City’s newest entry into the Major League of Soccer.
Bramble’s family woke up one morning to find messages of hate written on their driveway and a soccer ball with a hateful message sitting on his family’s porch. One of the messages stated, “You hate soccer.”
It is ironic that no where did I find any mention in any media outlet about the possibility of this being a hate crime, because evidently legislators who sponsor good legislation are not a protected group.
When talking about hate, attacks on family never seem to be hateful. The past two sessions, several good bills to protect the rights of families have come before the legislature and not been passed. Rep. Mike Morley (R-UT) introduced H.B. 42 which prevents school personnel from recommending psychotropic drugs to parents. Even worse, if parents do not follow the recommendations of school personnel they risk the chance of their children being permanently removed from their families. Why are attacks such as this not considered hateful?
Yet when Governor Huntsman vetoed this excellent piece of legislation nobody ever accused Huntsman of hating families.
Instead, those who routinely support families are the ones labeled as hateful. Since the left routinely lets us know that their intrusion into families lives, “Is for the children.”
When good family legislation, such as Morley’s, is introduced the left routinely tells us that we can’t trust parents. They argue that legislation which protects parents who choose to home school their children will hurt the children. They argue that legislation which protects parents’ rights when threatened with having their families involuntarily split apart will hurt children.
What the left has forgotten is the word love. While occasionally some parents put their children in harm’s way, the vast majority of parents love their children and want what is best for them. Because they love their children, government should get out of the way and allow them to raise their children to the best of their abilities.
Unfortunately, the left has become so focused on hate they do not believe that anyone, but themselves is capable of feeling or showing love.
In reality, they themselves should look in the mirror and ask themselves if their behavior is not truly the behavior that is hateful.
The Politics of Hate
By: Don Guymon
Hate is the strongest word in the English language, but it has become the favorite word of many on the left.
For the ninth straight year, hate crimes legislation reared its ugly head. News media outlets attempted to whip Utahns into frenzy by making them believe that they are all at risk if hate crime laws do not pass. Stories fill the air and pages of our newspapers about individuals who have suffered persecution. These stories routinely fail to acknowledge that these deplorable acts are already against the law.
When this legislation fails each session, these same institutions accuse those who opposed this legislation of being hateful.
Yet the accusations of hate do not stop there. Take for example last November’s debate over Amendment Three, which declared that marriage in the state of Utah would be between a man and a woman. This is how marriage has been defined since the beginning of time, yet many in Utah just recently came to the knowledge that if you believe in traditional values you must be guilty of hate.
It is ironic that some people supported both Amendment Three and hate crimes. What is truly scary is how easily the term hate was thrown out. One is left to ask the questions of those on the left, “If you supported Amendment Three, are you guilty of a hate crime?”
When one looks around the world, one sees instances where those who have stood up for traditional values have faced criminal prosecution. While we have not seen this yet in the United States, it appears that many would place us down the slippery slope where if one professes any moral values they risk being thrown in jail.
Yet, the labeling of hate doesn’t stop there. We recently learned that if one supports public property rights and opposes the transfer of tax dollars from the public to private enterprise one is also hateful.
If one supports the rule of law then they must be a hateful person. Individuals who believe only lawful citizens should receive privileges such as driver’s licenses and instate tuition are routinely labeled as hateful and racist.
Sen. Curt Bramble (R-UT) sponsored S.B. 227, which reformed Redevelopment Agencies. RDA abuse has run rampant in many years, as individuals have seen their property taken to be most confiscated to build large retail projects. Another project targeted for RDA money was a soccer stadium for Salt Lake City’s newest entry into the Major League of Soccer.
Bramble’s family woke up one morning to find messages of hate written on their driveway and a soccer ball with a hateful message sitting on his family’s porch. One of the messages stated, “You hate soccer.”
It is ironic that no where did I find any mention in any media outlet about the possibility of this being a hate crime, because evidently legislators who sponsor good legislation are not a protected group.
When talking about hate, attacks on family never seem to be hateful. The past two sessions, several good bills to protect the rights of families have come before the legislature and not been passed. Rep. Mike Morley (R-UT) introduced H.B. 42 which prevents school personnel from recommending psychotropic drugs to parents. Even worse, if parents do not follow the recommendations of school personnel they risk the chance of their children being permanently removed from their families. Why are attacks such as this not considered hateful?
Yet when Governor Huntsman vetoed this excellent piece of legislation nobody ever accused Huntsman of hating families.
Instead, those who routinely support families are the ones labeled as hateful. Since the left routinely lets us know that their intrusion into families lives, “Is for the children.”
When good family legislation, such as Morley’s, is introduced the left routinely tells us that we can’t trust parents. They argue that legislation which protects parents who choose to home school their children will hurt the children. They argue that legislation which protects parents’ rights when threatened with having their families involuntarily split apart will hurt children.
What the left has forgotten is the word love. While occasionally some parents put their children in harm’s way, the vast majority of parents love their children and want what is best for them. Because they love their children, government should get out of the way and allow them to raise their children to the best of their abilities.
Unfortunately, the left has become so focused on hate they do not believe that anyone, but themselves is capable of feeling or showing love.
In reality, they themselves should look in the mirror and ask themselves if their behavior is not truly the behavior that is hateful.
GrassRoots Prompts
For the past four years, GrassRoots has sent bookmarks to each legislator at the beginning of the session. These bookmarks are prompts for legislators to think about before they vote on a bill:
Sound Legislation Prompts
BEFORE VOTING, ASK YOURSELF: Have I read and understand the bill, and DOES THIS LEGISLATIVE ACTION…
· Increase taxes or fees?
· Expand the role or size of government?
· Create more dependency on government?
· Take away personal responsibility?
· Take away the rights of parents?
· Take away the right of individual choice?
· Stifle private prosperity?
· Contradict the right to life?
· Erode private property rights?
· Create inequality under the law?
· Is this a possible violation of the U.S. and/or Utah Constitution?
IF THE ANSWER IS YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, GRASSROOTS SUGGESTS A ‘NO’ VOTE.
www.utahgrassrooots.org
Sound Legislation Prompts
BEFORE VOTING, ASK YOURSELF: Have I read and understand the bill, and DOES THIS LEGISLATIVE ACTION…
· Increase taxes or fees?
· Expand the role or size of government?
· Create more dependency on government?
· Take away personal responsibility?
· Take away the rights of parents?
· Take away the right of individual choice?
· Stifle private prosperity?
· Contradict the right to life?
· Erode private property rights?
· Create inequality under the law?
· Is this a possible violation of the U.S. and/or Utah Constitution?
IF THE ANSWER IS YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, GRASSROOTS SUGGESTS A ‘NO’ VOTE.
www.utahgrassrooots.org
Abortion Resolution
Below is a copy of the abortion resolution I sponsored before the Utah Republican Central Committee. It passed unanimously.
Resolution Calling on State Senate to Pass
Pro-Life Legislation
By Don Guymon
Whereas, the platform of the Utah State Republican Party states, “We believe in the right to life for both the born and unborn. We strongly oppose abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted
suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices.”
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives passed H.B. 123 by a vote of 56-14-4 sponsored by Rep. Morgan Philpot which would have banned the public funding of abortion in the state of Utah, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring the bill to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives passed H.B. 241 by a vote of 66-8-1 sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson which would have strengthened Utah’s partial birth abortion laws, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring the bill to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed resolutions in 2000 and 2002 sponsored by Rep. Glen Way which called for an amendment to the United States Constitution banning abortion, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring either resolution to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, in 2001 the Center for Disease Control reported that 3,594 abortions were performed in the state of Utah.
Be it resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee thanks the members of the Utah House of Representatives who voted to stand for the rights of the unborn.
Be it further resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee implores the Utah State Senate to pass legislation as soon as possible to ban the public funding of abortion, strengthen Utah’s partial birth abortion laws and other legislation deemed necessary to protect the lives of the unborn.
Be it further resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee directs the party chairman to authenticate this resolution and send copies to Governor Olene Walker, Senate President Al Mansell, Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups, all other Republican members of the Utah State Senate, and all major media outlets in the state
of Utah.
Passed unanimously by the Utah Republican Central Committee at its Dec. 2003 meeting.
Resolution Calling on State Senate to Pass
Pro-Life Legislation
By Don Guymon
Whereas, the platform of the Utah State Republican Party states, “We believe in the right to life for both the born and unborn. We strongly oppose abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted
suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices.”
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives passed H.B. 123 by a vote of 56-14-4 sponsored by Rep. Morgan Philpot which would have banned the public funding of abortion in the state of Utah, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring the bill to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives passed H.B. 241 by a vote of 66-8-1 sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson which would have strengthened Utah’s partial birth abortion laws, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring the bill to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, the Utah House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed resolutions in 2000 and 2002 sponsored by Rep. Glen Way which called for an amendment to the United States Constitution banning abortion, and the Utah State Senate failed to bring either resolution to a vote on the floor of the senate.
Whereas, in 2001 the Center for Disease Control reported that 3,594 abortions were performed in the state of Utah.
Be it resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee thanks the members of the Utah House of Representatives who voted to stand for the rights of the unborn.
Be it further resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee implores the Utah State Senate to pass legislation as soon as possible to ban the public funding of abortion, strengthen Utah’s partial birth abortion laws and other legislation deemed necessary to protect the lives of the unborn.
Be it further resolved that the Utah Republican State Central Committee directs the party chairman to authenticate this resolution and send copies to Governor Olene Walker, Senate President Al Mansell, Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups, all other Republican members of the Utah State Senate, and all major media outlets in the state
of Utah.
Passed unanimously by the Utah Republican Central Committee at its Dec. 2003 meeting.
National Committeeman Race
Don Guymon
for
National Committeeman
Dear Delegates,
Thank you for your service to our party. Service such as yours is what keeps our republic and party great.
Our party and our nation are at a critical juncture. We must decide if we will remain committed to the principles which have made us the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I believe that a Republican Party committed to its principles is essential for our nation to remain strong.
As the father of five children, I am concerned for their future. I am blessed to have a supportive wife, who supports me in my efforts to serve the party. In my profession, I currently run the retail operations for a major telecommunications company in the state and have an MBA from Utah State University.
In the party, I have served nine years on the state central committee where I have served as the Constitution and Bylaws vice chair. I was also selected by former chairmen Rob Bishop and Joe Cannon to serve on the rules and resolutions committee. In Davis County I have served as a legislative chair, rules chair and elections chair.
For the past three years, I have been the chairman of Grassroots and have written their legislative report since 2001 (utahgrassroots.org).
Amongst the decisions we must face as a party are whether we will remain committed to principles of limited government, lower taxes, protection of all of our rights and freedoms including the right to life. As a party, we must decide if we will be a party that believes in the rule of law including our party laws but also laws such as our immigration laws.. On the national level we must look at our primary process and insure that all states have a voice in the selection of our presidential nominee.
I will be an effective voice for these issues, because of the service I have rendered in the past which includes:
· In 2008, I wrote and sponsored a bylaw in Davis County which called on all candidates to state whether they supported the party platform.
· Since I was vice chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, I have joined with others to insure state delegates have a voice in the party. I have spoken on state convention floor to protect the rights of state delegates to sponsor bylaws and constitutional amendments.
· I led the effort in Davis County to pass Amendment Three which protected traditional marriage.
· In 2004, I sponsored resolutions at county and state conventions which called upon the State Senate to pass an abortion resolution that it has not passed the previous session. The bill passed that session. I also passed resolutions in 2000 which called upon the party to choose a pro life vice presidential nominee.
· In 1999, I sponsored resolutions which called upon the state party to not pass any further gun laws. Both resolutions passed at the state convention and state central committee.
I am proud to be a conservative who supports our party platform. You know I will stand strong for you and the party because I have done so in the past. If elected I will make my self accessible to you. If you have any questions prior to or after the convention please contact me at donguymon@msn.com or call me at 801-574-9461.
Thank You,
Don Guymon
for
National Committeeman
Dear Delegates,
Thank you for your service to our party. Service such as yours is what keeps our republic and party great.
Our party and our nation are at a critical juncture. We must decide if we will remain committed to the principles which have made us the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I believe that a Republican Party committed to its principles is essential for our nation to remain strong.
As the father of five children, I am concerned for their future. I am blessed to have a supportive wife, who supports me in my efforts to serve the party. In my profession, I currently run the retail operations for a major telecommunications company in the state and have an MBA from Utah State University.
In the party, I have served nine years on the state central committee where I have served as the Constitution and Bylaws vice chair. I was also selected by former chairmen Rob Bishop and Joe Cannon to serve on the rules and resolutions committee. In Davis County I have served as a legislative chair, rules chair and elections chair.
For the past three years, I have been the chairman of Grassroots and have written their legislative report since 2001 (utahgrassroots.org).
Amongst the decisions we must face as a party are whether we will remain committed to principles of limited government, lower taxes, protection of all of our rights and freedoms including the right to life. As a party, we must decide if we will be a party that believes in the rule of law including our party laws but also laws such as our immigration laws.. On the national level we must look at our primary process and insure that all states have a voice in the selection of our presidential nominee.
I will be an effective voice for these issues, because of the service I have rendered in the past which includes:
· In 2008, I wrote and sponsored a bylaw in Davis County which called on all candidates to state whether they supported the party platform.
· Since I was vice chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, I have joined with others to insure state delegates have a voice in the party. I have spoken on state convention floor to protect the rights of state delegates to sponsor bylaws and constitutional amendments.
· I led the effort in Davis County to pass Amendment Three which protected traditional marriage.
· In 2004, I sponsored resolutions at county and state conventions which called upon the State Senate to pass an abortion resolution that it has not passed the previous session. The bill passed that session. I also passed resolutions in 2000 which called upon the party to choose a pro life vice presidential nominee.
· In 1999, I sponsored resolutions which called upon the state party to not pass any further gun laws. Both resolutions passed at the state convention and state central committee.
I am proud to be a conservative who supports our party platform. You know I will stand strong for you and the party because I have done so in the past. If elected I will make my self accessible to you. If you have any questions prior to or after the convention please contact me at donguymon@msn.com or call me at 801-574-9461.
Thank You,
Don Guymon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
