What follows is an interesting article written for the London Daily Mail by Peter Hitchens, a famous British author and journalist, and interestingly a political independent. We certainly don't manage our affairs in the US in accordance with Brit opinion, but it's always a good idea to know of the opinion of others previously proven of merit; he prompts valid questions of both liberals and conservatives.
He was in the USA on election night and wrote of his impressions. Like him or laugh at him, Hitchens remains popular throughout the world because many citizens of the globe think as he does. Some of you will nod your heads in agreement as you read it; others will frown; and still others will do both. Let's all hope that Mr. Hitchens' "Wave goodbye to America " is premature.

The Night We Waved Goodbye to America... Our Last Best Hope on Earth
London Daily Mail
Peter Hitchens
10 November 2008

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernize Heaven and Hell - or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead. The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization. At least Mandela-worship - its nearest equivalent - is focused on a man who actually did something. I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists, or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books, and Obama calendars, and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be. Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa , are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular savior, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to. Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr. Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home!).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated - but rather hesitant - invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will - 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidized slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King - in schools, streets, neighborhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joints. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr. Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr. Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lots of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination program aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them. And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington, DC the night of the election. America 's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street - which runs due north from the White House - the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America , it also now has a new division, and one, which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan. As I walked, I crossed another of Washington 's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique. These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party - the Republicans - to fight on the cultural and moral fronts. They preferred to posture on the world stage.

Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US , like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World.

How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

ESSAY CONTEST
Sponsored by: Longmont Republican Women

Theme:
"What the United States Constitution Means to Me."


Essay should be 500 words or less, typed and double-spaced, and should include a bibliography of any sources used.


Entries will be considered in two categories:
Senior: Students in 11th or 12th grade
Junior: Students in 7th or 8th grade


Prizes will be awarded as follows:
Senior category: First prize $150, Second prize $100
Junior category: First prize $75, Second prize $50


Winners will be notified by March 27th. Prizes will be awarded at a celebratory luncheon on April 16th and will include lunch for the winner and one parent.
Entries must be postmarked by March 6, 2009 and mailed to:
Longmont Republican Women
P.O. Box 1942
Longmont, CO 80502


PLEASE NOTE:
On the back of the essay, include the following: Student's full name, mailing address and telephone number, grade level and school in which the student is enrolled.
(Please do not put students name on the front of the essay.)
For additional information, visit: www.rightforlongmont.com

From a Fiscal Conservative and Taxpayer Point of View.
Marty Neilson

No doubt about it!! The Republicans across the Country and here in Colorado were whopped election 2008. It wasn't all bad, though. In Colorado, fiscal conservatives and taxpayers were winners!! The Colorado ballot was quite long; but, taxpayers paid attention and voted down tax increases, the annihilation of TABOR, and the usurping of citizens' right to petition.

Amendment 51, State Sales Tax Increase for Services for People with Developmental Disabilities
Voters turned down this sales tax increase by 62% to 38%. I am sure this is not an indication that voters oppose helping in this area; but, they are merely saying enough is enough. Use the taxpayer dollars you get more wisely. I appeared on a radio talk show in opposition to this amendment. As President of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, we oppose tax increases. The State already takes enough of our hard-earned dollars. Voters agreed! Spend it better!

Amendment 54, Restrictions on Campaign Contributions from Government Sole-Source Contractors
Defeated 51% to 49%. Also known as the "clean government amendment", this prevents government entities from sole-sourcing contractors, forcing them to get competitive bids. Should reign in some of that cronyism.

Amendment 59, Education Funding and TABOR Rebates
This was a real win for taxpayers. The amendment defeated by 55% to 45% would have virtually gutted the taxpayer's bill of rights and given government a blank check to spend, spend, spend! Just imagine where Colorado would be in these tough economic times without the spending restraint and the "no new taxes without a vote of the people" provided by TABOR. Even after this sound defeat, the first thing out of Boulder Senator Rollie Heath's mouth is "we need to get rid of TABOR". Guess we know where he stands on voter input!

Referendum O, Initiative Petition Requirements
This was another "end around" taxpayers and citizens. This referendum, if passed, would have made it tougher for citizens to get items on the ballot. Luckily it was defeated 52% to 48%. We citizens can still petition the government without added obstruction.

Republicans Will Keep America Great

Catastrophe is one word which has been used to describe America under Obama’s presidency. The writers are conservative commentators. With a Democratic government around Obama, that “catastrophe” word could be reality for all of us.

The Obama tax plan could increase taxes for small businesses, to be able for government to give money to those who need it, as Obama told an Ohio businessman. But higher taxes mean less operating funds and job creation will be cut. Country wide that will be a hit to the economy, maybe a catastrophe.

The health care plan being proposed will increase coverage, as in entitlement. However, costs will have to be reduced, either through reductions in treatment or pay to doctors and hospitals. Sooner or later that’s a catastrophe, and maybe it will be yours.

You’ve heard of global warming and know that carbon emissions are part of the emergency. The Environmental Protection Agency, under the cover of the Clean Air Act, would like to limit emissions on energy production. With Obama’s help, EPA wants to control emissions on all engines, from lawn mowers to cars and airplanes. I could do without the leaf blower but I may need to use my car or heat my home longer than the government allots. My carbon footprint, under consideration of Longmont government already, will be controlled – or else. The trickle-down , or up, will affect not only the country’s economy and safety but each household.

America has been great, and I’ve felt the 20th and 21st Centuries have been the greatest time in history. I’m not ready to watch America fall into catastrophic decline. We must elect Republicans to government.

McCain and Palin need our vote, and they need Bob Shaffer in the Senate and Marilyn Musgrave as District 4’s representative in House of Representatives.

Vote Republican.

McCain's Economy Will Create Better America

Democrat candidates’ speeches feature two main points on the economy: it is terrible and only Democrats care.

The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats go home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, returned to Congress to urge Democrats to address the issue but no action has been taken.

In the meantime, the daily papers tell us of how many people in America have risen into the ranks of the wealthy. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses.

I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democratic plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to some families, even those who pay no taxes.

The Democrats' plan will not help the economy but instead create hardships for all, families as well as businesses.

Vote Republican. Vote for Marilyn Musgrave for House of Representatives and Bob Shaffer to the Senate to support the economic plans of President McCain.

A BRAVE, BOLD ATTACK, MR. SENATOR

Shame on Sen. Ken Salazar for attempting to breathe life into his former aide Betsy Markey’s faltering campaign by calling her opponent, Marilyn Musgrave, an “agent of hate.” (Rocky Mountain News. . . p5 10-16-08). Salazar’s devastating attack on the 4th District Congresswoman follows the same tone of the totally undeserved racial remarks made a few days earlier by Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) against John McCain and Sarah Palin.
I don’t know whether Lewis lays claims of being a moderate or not. But I do know that Salazar did –- before he was elected, that is.
One more reason for Coloradans to send Bob Schaffer to the U.S. Senate -- two leftist-liberals embedded there is simply one too many for our politically diverse state.
P.

Who Am I?

I am under 45 years old.

I love the outdoors.

I hunt.

I am a Republican reformer.

I have taken on the Republican Party establishment.

I  have many children.

I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with

   less than 2 years in the governor's office.

Who am I?

I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900.

(From forwarded e mail.)

Your Tax Payment is Democrat Economy Solution

The Democrat candidate's speeches have two main points on the economy: it is terrible and only Democrats care.

The economy is not great for some of us and prices are rising, but do the Democrats really care? Gas prices go up but Democrats in Congress went home instead of considering ways for America to fill its own energy needs and keep money in America. Republicans, including Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, were in Washington to urge Democrats to address the issue but Democrats did not return.

We read that the ranks of the wealthy have risen in America. Over 800,000 have wealth of $2 million or more and 604,000 have over $3 million. These people pay 97% of all income taxes, and their wealth is invested in American businesses and industry.

I would like to have their excess dollars handed to me, but the Democrats' plan is to take the money through higher taxes. The Democrats can then distribute money to their home districts or set up expensive and wasteful government programs and bureaus to administer the entitlements. Their stimulus plan to fix the economy includes taxing oil companies to fund $1,000 rebates to lower income families, even those who pay no income taxes.

Elect Republicans to help America create jobs, not raise taxes. Elect Marilyn Musgrave to the House and Bob Schaffer to the Senate.

A letter from an Alaskan RE: Sarah Palin

Submitted by Dana. Unedited to keep the Alaskan "accent".

A letter from an Alaskan re: Sarah Palin---McCain’s pick for VP.
It’s a little long but informative.

Sarah Palin is the USs answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who
thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and
efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments
well, they havent met our Sarah .

As an Alaskan resident as well as a resident of Wasilla, AK,
where Sarah Palin was at one time Mayor I can speak with
confidence. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is exactly what she
portrayed during her introduction this morning and exactly
what our US Government needs. She is ethical to a fault (if
there is such a thing), a refreshing change to the status-quo
and as smart and determined a PERSON (gender really isnt an
issue here as far as Im concerned) as anyone could ask for at
the head of government.

Sarah is no nave small town mayor she just **started out**
there. Btw, as Mayor of Wasilla, she brought this small town
through a lot of GOOD changes and left it at the end of her
term having grown to the 4^th largest CITY in Alaska a lot of
growth and a stronger economic base than ever before.

She has EXECTUTIVE experience **running a government**
(something NONE of the other candidates can actually boast,
even John McCain ) as Governor of Alaska and got there by
defeating the **incumbent** Republican Governor, who was
definitely part of the old school and who WAS very much in the
pocket of the big oil companies. We in Alaska wanted change
and we got it in the person of Sarah Palin!

Sarah Palin is everything she looks to be and more. Her
approval rating as Governor of Alaska has been as high as 95%
and is currently leveled out consistently in the upper 80
percentile throughout the state (and in both parties) - the
HIGHEST approval rating of ANY sitting Governor.

Sarah has been turning around corruption in the Legislature of
Alaska - turning things on their ear for that matter; cutting
spending in spite of the increased income the state is
currently receiving due to the high oil prices - she has
insisted on putting a huge amount of the "windfall" into
savings for the future rather than spending, spending,
spending - and has insisted from the get-go on what she refers
to as "honest, ethical and transparent governing" - no more
closed door meetings and dealings - the big oil companies
thought she would be a pushover and have learned better to
their chagrin.

She understands the "real people" and the economic issues we
_all_ face (Alaskans along with the rest of the country) - she
was one of "us" not long ago. Rather than passing useless
"laws" or throwing money at pet projects, she (most recently)
temporarily suspended the state gas tax (on gasoline at the
pumps, fuel oil and natural gas for homes, etc.) and has
ordered checks issued to ALL residents of Alaska this fall in
an attempt to assist with the burden of high fuel costs for
the upcoming winter. I could go on and on, but that's enough
for now . She isnt doing these things to be popular she
is doing it because her constituents are HURTING financially
and she can help.

She became Governor of Alaska by defeating the Incumbent
Republican Governor and doing it *without* the money or the
support of the Republican Party, which was amazing in itself -
and she won by a landslide. The "powers that be" at that time
totally underestimated Sarah and learned better the hard way.
She has done exactly what she claimed she was going to do and
is just as popular today as the day she was elected - perhaps
more so since even the Democrats up here seem to like her -
she works well with both sides in the Legislature here.

Sarah "belongs" to us (Alaskans) ... and although we are going
to be terribly sorry to see her leave before she finishes the
job she started here (two years ago) straightening out OUR
State ... we understand she is needed for a bigger
purpose and hopefully her Lt. Governor will be able to fill
her shoes here and continue the job.

As for worrying about what would happen if McCain were to die
or step down or whatever ... Theta, up here in AK we've only
been wondering how long we would be able to KEEP Sarah in
Alaska and have seen her as our first woman President of the
USA from the start. It's always been a matter of whether she
would wait until the end of her TWO terms as Governor (no
doubt at ALL that she would be re-elected if she ran for a
second term at the end of her current term) ... or end up in
Washington sooner. She could do the job TODAY.

Personally, I feel a lot better about McCain now that I know
he has someone as savvy, as strong, as ethical and as steady
as Sarah at his back. She will be an excellent Vice President
... and my guess is will be our US Republican Presidential
candidate in four years - AND by then the country will KNOW
her will love and respect her as we do here - and she'll win
by as much of a landslide as she did here in Alaska. I only
wonder if McCain has a clue what he is unleashing on the US of
A . She is going to be a fresh wind, but also a strong
wind.

Is that enough of an endorsement? If not, I'll add this ...
Jerry and I have for many years felt the best "vote" was to
vote for the lesser of two "evils" and hope they didn't do too
much damage. Two years ago during our State Governor's race
was the first time EVER that we actually asked for not just a
little sign to put in our yard showing our support of our
candidate (something we've never felt the desire to do at all
before) - we asked for a full 4' x 8' "SARAH PALIN FOR
GOVERNOR!" sign and were proud to have it. She hasn't let us
or Alaska down. She will do the same for the USA if given the
opportunity.

Feel free to pass this on to anyone who may be interested (and
spam those who arent!).

-Deb Frost in Alaska

WE CAN'T ALL GET ALONG

We can't all get along
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News
mikerosen@850koa.com

Originally published 12:05 a.m., August 15, 2008
Updated 01:43 a.m., August 15, 2008
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/15/rosen-we-the-people/

'We the people of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."

When those words, the Preamble to the Constitution, were crafted, the context was to introduce a document prescribing the foundation, organization and general rules of a new system of government based on a bottom-up model of governance.

Power would derive from the people, not from the "divine right" of a king or from the condescending benevolence or superior wisdom of some ruling elite. Fortifying that document was the Bill of Rights, reinforcing the clear understanding that fundamental rights belonged naturally to individuals and were beyond the whims of government.

Respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives

The phrase "We the people," it should be understood, does not imply that the United States is a commune, a homogeneous collective of like-minded people who all agree on issues of public policy. When Democrats talk of their party as "the party of the people," they tend to apply that in just such a collective - or socialist - sense. As a Republican, I prefer to regard my party as "the party of the person" - the party that better respects and protects individual rights and prerogatives.

That doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or selfish or have no sense of community. I like to think I'm a good neighbor and a good citizen. But I also believe that voluntary, cooperative associations are more desirable and productive than mandatory ones. There have been times when Americans have forged a consensus on vital matters. But even during the American Revolution and World War II there were dissenters, to say nothing of the Civil War. Our motto, E pluribus unum - "Out of many, one" - is an ideal, not an absolute. I have no illusion that people in this or any other nation are of one mind.

"We the people" – a meaningless cliche.

That wonderful, inspirational expression "We the people" has become, all too often, a meaningless cliche. It's repeatedly used by writers of letters to the editor or populist talk-show hosts - both liberal and conservative - who sanctimoniously utter platitudes like: "We must demand that those in our government follow the will of the people, since they work for us."

But which people? The people who listen to left-wing Air America or agree with liberal editorials in The New York Times are not the same people who support the conservative opinions of Rush Limbaugh or agree with free market editorials in The Wall Street Journal.

And politicians don't represent some abstract, unanimous "us."

In the real world of politics, they tend to favor the agendas of the majority of voters and interest groups that put them in office. It's understandable that the minority of voters who supported a losing candidate feel poorly represented, but that's the way elections work. Boulder's "ins" are the "outs" in Colorado Springs.

It's not that "We the people" can't agree on anything, but it's certainly true that we won't agree on everything. Along with some areas of common ground, there are also irreconcilable differences between hawks and doves, seniors and juniors, protectionists and free traders, pro-life and pro-choice, unions and businesses, big government and small, public and private, gays and straights, men and women, blacks and whites, urban and rural, nannyists and rugged individualists, rednecks and hippies, etc.

On most issues, grand and petty, and on the very definition of the "common good," there is no monolithic "we." There's you and me and them. Always has been, always will be.

James Madison spoke of an offsetting multiplicity of factions as preferable to the inordinate influence of a few dominant interests. Minor political parties can be single-minded, purist and uncompromising. That's why they're minor parties with small followings.

Major parties are the clearinghouses of multiple factions, harboring their own internal disagreements while coming together to form a generally like-minded coalition. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties." And, I'd add, no freedom without parties that disagree.

And that, Rodney King, is why we can't all get along.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com

Walking Eagle

Senator BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York.

HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit it can no longer fly.

Reality Check from Scotland

Reality Check from Scotland

U S Election-2008

An email from Scotland to all of their brethren in the States... a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Scotland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you have a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run.
Now... On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology, married to a good looking, blond younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What in Lords name are you lads thinking over there in the colonies?

The "election" is a gimme, right?'
..

I Changed My Mind!

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don't have to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don't want to have any guns in the house to fight them off with.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 8% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would EVER vote Republican, now doesn't it?

Becoming Illegal!
FORMS ARE GOING FAST- SIGN UP TODAY!

Becoming Illegal (Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Harkin,

As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Donald RuppertBurlington, IA

Get your Forms (NOW)!! Call your Internal Revenue Service 1-800-289-1040.

Please pass this on to your friends so they can save on this great offer!

Udall too far to the left for Colorado

Publish Date: 3/21/2008
GOP chairman: Udall too far to the left for Colorado
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
LONGMONT —
Mark Udall is a “Boulder liberal” whose congressional voting record doesn’t represent most Coloradans’ viewpoints, according to Colorado Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams.
Eldorado Springs Democrat Udall, who’s running for U.S. Senate rather than seeking re-election to his 2nd Congressional District seat, “has been a great congressman for Boulder,” Wadhams told 20 people attending a Longmont Republican Women’s luncheon Thursday at the Terroir restaurant.
“Need I say more?” he asked.
Wadhams said he has Boulder friends, but “Boulder’s out of the mainstream of Colorado.”
Wadhams — who also is the campaign manager for former 4th District Congressman Bob Schaffer, the GOP candidate in this year’s U.S. Senate contest — said: “We can beat Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”
Wadhams said Fort Collins Republican Schaffer is “probably one of the most articulate, eloquent speakers we’ve ever put up” for public office.
Wadhams said a Schaffer victory can be won by getting Colorado voters to compare Udall’s 10 years of congressional votes and bill sponsorships with the record Schaffer compiled during his six years in Congress.
Wadhams said an example of how Udall’s liberalism is “to the left of Colorado” was Udall’s onetime co-sponsorship of a bill that would create a U.S. Department of Peace and would fund that department by diverting billions of dollars in annual federal budget appropriations from the Defense Department.
Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”
West said Udall later withdrew his co-sponsorship of the measure because he ultimately couldn’t support creation of a new cabinet-level Peace Department and its projected expense.
However, Wadhams charged that Udall dropped his support for the bill only when he began considering a Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate seat up for election in 2004.
Democrat Ken Salazar won that seat and Democrat Bill Ritter won the governor’s office in 2006 by running as moderates, Wadhams suggested.
But Wadhams said that, unlike Udall and Schaffer, neither Salazar nor Ritter had state- or federal-level legislative voting records that Coloradans could scrutinize during those campaigns.
Wadhams suggested that he and Schaffer will repeat many of the successful political tactics used by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, the Larimer County Republican whose 1996 election and 2002 re-election campaigns Wadhams managed.
Wadhams said Allard “was not afraid to draw clear and distinct contrasts” between his positions and those of Democratic candidate Tom Strickland in both contests.
Later on Thursday, though, Udall spokeswoman West said: “Bob Schaffer is not Wayne Allard. Bob Schaffer spent six years in Congress and got next to nothing done for Colorado.”
Wadhams said this year’s race offers clear contrasts between Udall and Schaffer, who was the Longmont Republican Women’s guest speaker last month.
Wadhams said Allard made it a point of campaigning in every Colorado county, running on what Wadhams said were such mainstream Republican principles as balancing the federal budget and returning power to state and local governments.
For more than a year, Wadhams and other Republicans have brandished the “Boulder liberal” label when talking about Udall, but the Democrat’s campaign staff has dismissed the tag as narrow and misleading.
But West said Wadhams and Schaffer “know that Bob Schaffer’s record is far out of the mainstream for Colorado. The only way they can deal with that is by calling names and making up labels.”
Udall’s record and reputation, West said, are that of “a guy who reaches across the aisle to get things done for Colorado.”
West said Udall was unavailable for comment Thursday because he was on the road and taking advantage of Congress’ Easter recess to spend time vacationing with his family “before the campaign really kicks in gear.”
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.

Do We Need Change?

Are you enjoying the retirement funds you saved during your working years? Or even the funds you earned from your own company's products or endeavors? And have you hoped you could pass on to your heirs what  you won't need to spend?

Forget that. The Democrats want you to pay more in taxes, maybe most of your profits or retirement income. The Democrats want you to pay more in taxes so they can spend it on projects in their home district - and then put their names up front (Marilyn Musgrave spoke against earmarks earlier this year). Democrats want your money so they can spend it. 

Do you think gas prices are high enough but you can get by if errands are planned carefully? Is your home's heating system working adequately during hot spells - or cold snaps - if temperatures are kept at a moderate level? Do you want to do your part in saving the atmosphere?

Forget planning,  moderation and cooperation. Think more about coercion and rationing. The Democrats will demand your cooperation. Gas prices may be taxed so high that it will be too expensive to drive. Or rationing will be enforced again so that those who really need to drive, or can afford the elevated prices because of the supply and demand, will have access to available gas.  Or driving may be monitored so that there will be no more solo drivers. After all, in today's convenient society the highways' traffic is dominated by vehicles with a driver but no passengers. (Count the cars - check it out.)

Do you feel comfortable with your doctor? Is he monitoring your health issues and your insurance plan is covering expenses to your satisfaction?

The Democrats have a new model for the nation's health care system. They will ensure that doctors are overworked, unhappy in their job and will feel underpaid. Democrats will almost certainly guarantee that you will see an assigned doctor, not your long-time friend and care giver. Unless you are having an emergency, when you will be treated promptly, you will wait for your appointment and elective procedures.

Jobs are sure to be lost because of free trade limitations and excessive corporate and excise taxes.

The Democratic candidates for offices and for the presidency are committed to Change: Taxes will change, medical care will Change, the American way of life with Change.

Eliminating these threats to personal and national well being can be accomplished: Vote Republican. Vote FOR Katie Witt, Marilyn Musgrave, Bob Shaeffer, and for President John McCain. 

Where's the Candidate?

Congressional Representative Marilyn Musgrave came to Longmont on Wednesday to talk to constituents in the 4th District. Musgrave worked for and talked with the voters by pumping gas for them at a gas station on Ken Pratt Blvd.

The Times-Call ran a nice photo of Musgrave on the front page of Thursday's edition. The photo, a nice image, took 6 inches of newspaper space (2 columns x 3 inches= 6 column inches.)

Musgrave's opponent came to Prospect on Wednesday, as if on cue, and her photo occupied 27.75 inches of space (3 columns x 9.25 inches = 27.75 column inches). It is an overhead shot and the candidate's image is so small that we would find it hard to pick her out of a police lineup but there is a lot of space around her in the photo, which is above the the fold on the front page.

Musgrave's photo is positioned below the fold in the bottom half of the front page and would be easy to miss while the non-photo dominates the page.

The news story itself runs about 130 lines of copy. The copy devoted to the Congressional Representative runs about 50 lines.

In a sidebar, Musgrave's opponent was allowed to criticize nearly every component of Musgrave's Energy Policy, but Musgrave was not allowed to question any of the opponent's policies.

So goes the news.

Musgrave Supports Comprehensive Energy Bill

Congressional Representative Marilyn Musgrave has served her elected position for one reason: to serve the people in her District. Her votes are based on what she believes the District voters want. She is their Representative. Her voting is not about her beliefs and does not tell us what we need to be doing.

Musgrave believes her support of a comprehensive energy plan, including drilling the nation's reserve energy sources, will help the people and their families.

Musgrave deserves our support in the November election.

"...the futility of human pretentions"

Robert Harris wrote this in  "Pompeii," the fictionalized account of the events around the destruction of Pompeii when the

volcano erupted:

"A comfort to think that these things (nature) are somehow connected to our behavior: if only we had lived better or more frugally our virtue would be rewarded. But nature sweeps forward, indifferent. We see the futility of human pretentions."

Who controls gas prices?

Is your gas bill too high?

One reason is Congressional action including refusal to allow drilling in United States' areas where ample supplies exist.

Another reason is refusing to allow the building of new refineries or even enlarging  existing ones.

At the recent hearing before Congress Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) actually said the word "socialize" when

referring to possible actions for the government to control oil prices - and companies. She was speechless for about 

10 seconds when she realized her gaffe in revealing the Democrats' ultimate plans.  

At the hearing, an oil company executive called Congressional actions a "disservice" to American consumers - and voters.

One way for consumers to respond is to elect a Congress that will listen and serve us, not special interests.

Or don't drive at all, which, of course, is what some special interest groups want: We stay out of our cars and off

the roads.

A Republican Congress will give Americans  control of resources, commerce, even health care and our personal

resources.

Reelect  Marilyn Musgrave as Representative from Colorado's 4th District . 

(Hearings for the oil companies were shown in part on cable news. 

Fox News aired Representative Waters' untimely choice of words.)