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.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
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?'
..
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?
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!
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.
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.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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.
Friday, July 4, 2008
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
"...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."
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)