1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Scroll down for the answers...
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 6/29/2004.
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 5/29/2007.
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 6/4/2007.
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 6/4/2007.
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 6/4/2007.
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton on 9/2/2005.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
St. Peters Appointment to Alderman Information
3 vie for aldermanic post
By Tim Bryant
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/24/2007
ST. PETERS — Three candidates — including one who sought the job this spring — remain in the running to fill the aldermanic seat vacated by Bruce Holt, who resigned to take a state job.
Mayor Len Pagano said at Thursday night's aldermanic meeting that he will interview the candidates during a closed session at the board's meeting Sept. 13. If he and aldermen agree on a candidate, the appointment could be made that night, Pagano said,
Candidates for the Ward 3 seat are Pat Houlahan, Lonnie Nasalroad and Ed Remillard. They qualified by meeting Pagano's requirement that they submit a nominating petition signed by 150 Ward 3 voters. Thomas Roberts Jr. also submitted a petition, but it was rejected by St. Charles County election authorities, Pagano said. Election officials determined that someone who does not reside in the ward signed the petition, the mayor said.
Houlahan and Roberts were among the candidates who lost the Ward 3 election in April to Gus Elliott, who won the aldermanic seat Pagano formerly held. Advertisement
The other 3rd Ward seat became available when Holt resigned in July to take a job with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Elliott and Alderman Dave Thomas, who also was elected in April, wanted the candidate interviews to be shown on the city's cable television channel. Aldermen rejected that idea by a 5-2 vote.
Pagano's choice for alderman will complete Holt's term, which expires next spring.
Thomas and Elliott also want future candidates to disclose whether they have been convicted of a felony. Thomas said a state law that declares felons unqualified for state office should be expanded to cover municipalities.
But only Alderman Rocky Reitmeyer supported them in a resolution asking the Legislature to pass a law prohibiting felons from qualifying as municipal candidates. Voting against the resolution were Aldermen Don Aytes, Judy Bateman, Patrick Barclay and Jerry Hollingsworth.
tbryant@post-dispatch.com | 636-255-7212
By Tim Bryant
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
08/24/2007
ST. PETERS — Three candidates — including one who sought the job this spring — remain in the running to fill the aldermanic seat vacated by Bruce Holt, who resigned to take a state job.
Mayor Len Pagano said at Thursday night's aldermanic meeting that he will interview the candidates during a closed session at the board's meeting Sept. 13. If he and aldermen agree on a candidate, the appointment could be made that night, Pagano said,
Candidates for the Ward 3 seat are Pat Houlahan, Lonnie Nasalroad and Ed Remillard. They qualified by meeting Pagano's requirement that they submit a nominating petition signed by 150 Ward 3 voters. Thomas Roberts Jr. also submitted a petition, but it was rejected by St. Charles County election authorities, Pagano said. Election officials determined that someone who does not reside in the ward signed the petition, the mayor said.
Houlahan and Roberts were among the candidates who lost the Ward 3 election in April to Gus Elliott, who won the aldermanic seat Pagano formerly held. Advertisement
The other 3rd Ward seat became available when Holt resigned in July to take a job with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Elliott and Alderman Dave Thomas, who also was elected in April, wanted the candidate interviews to be shown on the city's cable television channel. Aldermen rejected that idea by a 5-2 vote.
Pagano's choice for alderman will complete Holt's term, which expires next spring.
Thomas and Elliott also want future candidates to disclose whether they have been convicted of a felony. Thomas said a state law that declares felons unqualified for state office should be expanded to cover municipalities.
But only Alderman Rocky Reitmeyer supported them in a resolution asking the Legislature to pass a law prohibiting felons from qualifying as municipal candidates. Voting against the resolution were Aldermen Don Aytes, Judy Bateman, Patrick Barclay and Jerry Hollingsworth.
tbryant@post-dispatch.com | 636-255-7212
Saturday, September 08, 2007
St. Peters Aldermans Position has Growing Pains
Four, not three, to vie for seat on board
By Latreecia Wade
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:37 PM CDT
St. Peters officials said Monday that four candidates are eligible to fill a Ward 3 seat on the Board of Aldermen - contrary to a statement made during a recent board meeting.
Officials said Tommy Roberts Jr., an operating engineer for Local 513, meets all requirements to be considered as a candidate for the Ward 3 seat.
Mayor Len Pagano said during Thursday night's board meeting that only three candidates were eligible for the seat.
"I got all the information back from the (St. Charles) County Executive's office and three candidates were qualified and one was not," Pagano said.
Candidates Patrick Houlahan, Ed Remillard and Lonnie Nasalroad had met the qualifications to apply for an appointment to the seat, Pagano said Thursday.
Former Alderman Bruce Holt resigned from his Ward 3 seat in July after accepting a job with Gov. Matt Blunt. Blunt appointed Holt to serve as a special adviser for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
To be considered as a candidate, each person needed the signatures of at least 150 registered Ward 3 voters, Pagano said.
Previously, Pagano said Roberts was not eligible because voters who signed his petition had also signed other candidates' petitions.
On Monday, Roberts said it was not explained that having duplicate signatures disqualified a candidate.
"That wasn't a part of the rules," Roberts said.
Pagano said on Monday that duplicate signatures do not disqualify a candidate.
The confusion stemmed from St. Charles County and St. Charles appointment methods where a registered voter's signature can only be credited on one candidate petition. Any subsequent petitions turned in by other candidates with the same signatures on it would not go into the total, according to a St. Peters news release.
Roberts said when he was told he was disqualified, he discussed the matter with Rich Chrismer, director of elections with the St. Charles County Election Authority.
"Rich Chrismer assured me that St. Peters was responsible for me not qualifying, so I went to talk to (City Clerk) Rhonda Shaw," Roberts said.
Shaw sat down with Roberts and went through his petition with him, he said.
"She was very helpful and that's where I found those discrepancies," Roberts said.
Pagano said Monday that the petition requirement was new for the city.
"It's something new for us," he said. "(Roberts) qualifies for an interview."
The next step in the process will be candidate interviews, which will take place Sept. 18 during an executive session, with Pagano and the Board of Aldermen.
By Latreecia Wade
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:37 PM CDT
St. Peters officials said Monday that four candidates are eligible to fill a Ward 3 seat on the Board of Aldermen - contrary to a statement made during a recent board meeting.
Officials said Tommy Roberts Jr., an operating engineer for Local 513, meets all requirements to be considered as a candidate for the Ward 3 seat.
Mayor Len Pagano said during Thursday night's board meeting that only three candidates were eligible for the seat.
"I got all the information back from the (St. Charles) County Executive's office and three candidates were qualified and one was not," Pagano said.
Candidates Patrick Houlahan, Ed Remillard and Lonnie Nasalroad had met the qualifications to apply for an appointment to the seat, Pagano said Thursday.
Former Alderman Bruce Holt resigned from his Ward 3 seat in July after accepting a job with Gov. Matt Blunt. Blunt appointed Holt to serve as a special adviser for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
To be considered as a candidate, each person needed the signatures of at least 150 registered Ward 3 voters, Pagano said.
Previously, Pagano said Roberts was not eligible because voters who signed his petition had also signed other candidates' petitions.
On Monday, Roberts said it was not explained that having duplicate signatures disqualified a candidate.
"That wasn't a part of the rules," Roberts said.
Pagano said on Monday that duplicate signatures do not disqualify a candidate.
The confusion stemmed from St. Charles County and St. Charles appointment methods where a registered voter's signature can only be credited on one candidate petition. Any subsequent petitions turned in by other candidates with the same signatures on it would not go into the total, according to a St. Peters news release.
Roberts said when he was told he was disqualified, he discussed the matter with Rich Chrismer, director of elections with the St. Charles County Election Authority.
"Rich Chrismer assured me that St. Peters was responsible for me not qualifying, so I went to talk to (City Clerk) Rhonda Shaw," Roberts said.
Shaw sat down with Roberts and went through his petition with him, he said.
"She was very helpful and that's where I found those discrepancies," Roberts said.
Pagano said Monday that the petition requirement was new for the city.
"It's something new for us," he said. "(Roberts) qualifies for an interview."
The next step in the process will be candidate interviews, which will take place Sept. 18 during an executive session, with Pagano and the Board of Aldermen.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Len Pagano for Mayor - My Frank Opinion
Throughout his service of 24 years Len Pagano's character is exactly what the city of St. Peters needs in its Mayors Office. The last two Mayors of St. Peters were “strong businessmen” types who have been involved in some shady deals resulting in our community getting hurt. One ex Mayor serving time in Federal Prison.
Is this what the city of St. Peters wants? Jerry Hollingsworth for all his good qualities, is a business man who has been on the alderman’s board during the Tom Brown and Sean Brown days. Do we take a chance on this silver tounged business man that he will deliver what he says he will.
As a St. Peters citizen I truly want what is best for the community. Len Panago’s track record for standing up for citizens rights, bringing “fresh” ideas only to have the other aldermen shoot them down and bring them back a few weeks later as their idea is downright dishonest and low.
These type of political tactics show in a persons over all character. A character that Len Pagano doesn't share with his competition.
Len Pagano's honest fair approach as well as his willingness to be a “FULL TIME MAYOR" will bring our city government back to where I believe it needs to be.
Please vote for Len Pagano for your Mayor of St. Peters on April 2nd.
- My Frank Opinion
Posted on STLtoday.com St. Peters Missouri Opinions Section
Is this what the city of St. Peters wants? Jerry Hollingsworth for all his good qualities, is a business man who has been on the alderman’s board during the Tom Brown and Sean Brown days. Do we take a chance on this silver tounged business man that he will deliver what he says he will.
As a St. Peters citizen I truly want what is best for the community. Len Panago’s track record for standing up for citizens rights, bringing “fresh” ideas only to have the other aldermen shoot them down and bring them back a few weeks later as their idea is downright dishonest and low.
These type of political tactics show in a persons over all character. A character that Len Pagano doesn't share with his competition.
Len Pagano's honest fair approach as well as his willingness to be a “FULL TIME MAYOR" will bring our city government back to where I believe it needs to be.
Please vote for Len Pagano for your Mayor of St. Peters on April 2nd.
- My Frank Opinion
Posted on STLtoday.com St. Peters Missouri Opinions Section
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Of Elephants and Donkeys - What Now!
Just a few words about politicians followed by a few words about we the people.
Lookie, lookie. The Dems take over Congress and guess what? Nothing changes. What do Democratic voters get? They get a T-Shirt that reads: I voted Democrat and all I got was this a) troop escalation b) a three week per month work week for Congress or c) a House Speaker with "jet envy".
The Democrats promised to "change the course" in Iraq and there are more troops in Iraq now than before November. (That said, I did not support the surge but I trust the President's decision and pray for success. That's why I didn't vote to send any Democrats to Congress: I don't think success is in their playbook.) The Democrats promised a "do-something Congress" and now them and their Republican clones are trying to work less. The Democrats whined about piggish Republicans and now they've got a Speaker who wants a 757 for weekend trips home. Democratic voters should ask for their money back--at least until their taxes increase and they give it away to the government again.
And don't even get me started on Republicans. We've got the deep dark mystery of a President who has mastered the philosophy of the War on Terror but does nothing about securing our borders. Republicans pay lip service to immigration problems that harm both Americans and illegals but still do nothing. Fiscal Conservatives elect them only to be betrayed by spending sprees and a ballooning government. Clean government advocates elected Republicans only to find the likes of DeLay and Foley. More recently Republicans, in what I believe is a backroom, deal with embarrassed Democrats-- have thwarted the foolish non-binding resolution vote. I don't know about you, but I've been dying to see how Republicans and Democrats would vote on such a shameful measure. So much for aiding public service.
All that said, in probably sound like an advocate for cynicism. On the contrary, I am an advocate for an American reality check that could change our country's course in 2008. Will a newly elected President render our modern day politicians to prehistory? Let's hope.The modern day politician is just that: A politician first and a citizen second. More often than not they are loyal to their party first, their donors second, and you and me third. Yes the party machines and money are to blame but so are we. Barely half of all registered voters in the U.S. bother to vote. That's not counting all the Americans who aren't even registered at all. If we included that figure we'd have a total American citizen voter turnout of maybe 30 percent. In the so called "Iraqi quagmire" voter turnout was around 80% and voters there were threatened with death.
If we don't call, why do we expect politicians to answer?
If we don't care, why do we expect politicians to care? Right now all they really have to do is make their Party and their donors happy and they have it made.
Changing the political culture will take a while. But the sooner we start exerting our power as voters the sooner we will cast out the politicians who don't listen and who consider elective office a meal ticket. Two cycles from now we may have even created a new breed of politician who doesn't suck up to NBC News, to special interests, and to his or her Party, and who instead realizes the thundering and diverse herd known as the "American citizen" is never far behind.
Lookie, lookie. The Dems take over Congress and guess what? Nothing changes. What do Democratic voters get? They get a T-Shirt that reads: I voted Democrat and all I got was this a) troop escalation b) a three week per month work week for Congress or c) a House Speaker with "jet envy".
The Democrats promised to "change the course" in Iraq and there are more troops in Iraq now than before November. (That said, I did not support the surge but I trust the President's decision and pray for success. That's why I didn't vote to send any Democrats to Congress: I don't think success is in their playbook.) The Democrats promised a "do-something Congress" and now them and their Republican clones are trying to work less. The Democrats whined about piggish Republicans and now they've got a Speaker who wants a 757 for weekend trips home. Democratic voters should ask for their money back--at least until their taxes increase and they give it away to the government again.
And don't even get me started on Republicans. We've got the deep dark mystery of a President who has mastered the philosophy of the War on Terror but does nothing about securing our borders. Republicans pay lip service to immigration problems that harm both Americans and illegals but still do nothing. Fiscal Conservatives elect them only to be betrayed by spending sprees and a ballooning government. Clean government advocates elected Republicans only to find the likes of DeLay and Foley. More recently Republicans, in what I believe is a backroom, deal with embarrassed Democrats-- have thwarted the foolish non-binding resolution vote. I don't know about you, but I've been dying to see how Republicans and Democrats would vote on such a shameful measure. So much for aiding public service.
All that said, in probably sound like an advocate for cynicism. On the contrary, I am an advocate for an American reality check that could change our country's course in 2008. Will a newly elected President render our modern day politicians to prehistory? Let's hope.The modern day politician is just that: A politician first and a citizen second. More often than not they are loyal to their party first, their donors second, and you and me third. Yes the party machines and money are to blame but so are we. Barely half of all registered voters in the U.S. bother to vote. That's not counting all the Americans who aren't even registered at all. If we included that figure we'd have a total American citizen voter turnout of maybe 30 percent. In the so called "Iraqi quagmire" voter turnout was around 80% and voters there were threatened with death.
If we don't call, why do we expect politicians to answer?
If we don't care, why do we expect politicians to care? Right now all they really have to do is make their Party and their donors happy and they have it made.
Changing the political culture will take a while. But the sooner we start exerting our power as voters the sooner we will cast out the politicians who don't listen and who consider elective office a meal ticket. Two cycles from now we may have even created a new breed of politician who doesn't suck up to NBC News, to special interests, and to his or her Party, and who instead realizes the thundering and diverse herd known as the "American citizen" is never far behind.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Religion, Article VI, and Judicial Confirmations: Some Not-So-Hypothetical Questions
I came across this article in BYU Magazine. (I'm not a BYU alumnus and so I don't get their alumni magazine. I just happened to be in a position to read the article due to knowing others.)
There are two interesting things about the article. First, it is what I would call a classical Mormon approach to Jesus Christ and what He means to us. Virtually every devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church") would find the article compelling and inspiring. Second, it is written by Thomas Griffith, who was general counsel to BYU and is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is the second-most important federal appellate court, after the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith was nominated by President George W. Bush and approved after the Gang of 14 deal, I believe.
The Mind Begins to Work :
I love hypothetical questions. As I read that piece by Judge Griffith, it occurred to me that it provides a nice opportunity to tee up the Romney faith issue with a hypothetical.
The Hypothetical:
Imagine yourself as a conservative Republican and Evangelical Christian member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tom Griffith, now serving as general counsel to BYU and with a stellar legal background prior to that position, has been nominated by the president to the D.C. Circuit. You understand that court's importance and always pay special attention to D.C. Circuit nominations.
You have just read the BYU Magazine article, which one of your staffers gave you as background material on the nominee. The views expressed are very foreign to you, and in fact you find them very unacceptable theologically . In addition, the article reveals that Griffith has served as a Mormon stake president– a very high lay position in the Church, in which Mitt Romney has also served.
Some Questions
Lowell's essential question, plainly stated is, "Is there a difference between casting a vote in the Senate and voting booth? And if so, why is that not a form of bigotry?" There is a a difference between the Senate and the voting booth - accountability. A Senate vote is pubic and open for review, discussion, ridicule, and in extreme cases formal enforcment action in terms of the provisions of Article VI of the Constitution. The voting booth on the other hand may be the most private place in the entire nation and there is no one and nothing to hold you or I accountable in how we cast our ballots.
Which is where the word "bigotry" becomes, in my opinion, very important. You see, prevailing public sentiment matters to us whether we want to think so or not. It is an indirect form of accountability. If casting a vote against a Mormon, solely on the basis of religion, is generally viewed as "bigoted" it will serve as a check on the conscience of most voters. If, on the other hand, such a consideration is viewed as somehow "par for the course," voters will feel free to hold such considerations in their minds as they act.
That there are differences between African-American and Caucasian-American culture is an undeniable and inarguable fact in America. To argue to the contrary is to simply fly in the face of reality. And yet voting against a person of color on that basis would be undeniably considered a "bigoted" act. Now, while skin color is a matter of genetics, participation in black culture is not - that is a matter of personal choice and affiliation - just as religion is.
True conservatives are now barking, "Culture, well at least cultural values, IS a reason to vote against someone, and it's not bigotry." They'd be right, but the cultural values are the issue, not the skin color associated therewith. There are blacks that chose to hold those values and those that do not. The bigotry arises in using the too simple and formulaic "Black = NO Vote" when what is called for is a more sophisticated analysis of the candidate's positions and values.
And so it is with Mormons. The simple "Mormon = NO vote" is a form of bigotry.
There are two interesting things about the article. First, it is what I would call a classical Mormon approach to Jesus Christ and what He means to us. Virtually every devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church") would find the article compelling and inspiring. Second, it is written by Thomas Griffith, who was general counsel to BYU and is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is the second-most important federal appellate court, after the Supreme Court. Judge Griffith was nominated by President George W. Bush and approved after the Gang of 14 deal, I believe.
The Mind Begins to Work :
I love hypothetical questions. As I read that piece by Judge Griffith, it occurred to me that it provides a nice opportunity to tee up the Romney faith issue with a hypothetical.
The Hypothetical:
Imagine yourself as a conservative Republican and Evangelical Christian member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tom Griffith, now serving as general counsel to BYU and with a stellar legal background prior to that position, has been nominated by the president to the D.C. Circuit. You understand that court's importance and always pay special attention to D.C. Circuit nominations.
You have just read the BYU Magazine article, which one of your staffers gave you as background material on the nominee. The views expressed are very foreign to you, and in fact you find them very unacceptable theologically . In addition, the article reveals that Griffith has served as a Mormon stake president– a very high lay position in the Church, in which Mitt Romney has also served.
Some Questions
1. Would you you take the religious views expressed in Griffith's article intoI think there are fascinating answers to Questions 2 and 3. One of them might be that although some people tolerate Mormons serving on the federal appellate courts, in Cabinet positions, and in the Senate and House, elevating a devout Mormon to the Supreme Court is just a little "too much," because that would confer legitimacy on, or would "mainstream," Mormonism, an outcome Al Mohler finds deeply worrisome. In other words, Mormons can serve in high public office, but not in the highest of those offices. This leads to additional questions:
account in deciding whether or not to support his nomination? Presumably no,
because the views are purely theological, and to take Griffith's religion into
account is flatly prohibited under Article VI to the Constitution.
2. Would your answer to Question 1 change if Griffith were before you as a nominee not to the D.C. Circuit, but as a sitting D.C. Circuit judge now proposed for elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court?
3. If your answer to Questions 1 or 2 is "no," do you see any difference between excluding Griffith's Mormonism from your consideration of him as a judicial nominee, on one hand, and excluding Romney's religion from your consideration of him as a presidential candidate, on the other?
I greatly disapprove of using words as discussion-stoppers. The Left does this all the time, as in throwing "racist" and "homophobe" at anyone who sees certain issues differently than they. I think the word "bigotry" deserves careful consideration in the context of politics and religion. Anyone who would struggle with supporting Griffith for any federal court nomination, or with voting for Mitt Romney for any national office, based on either man's religious beliefs, should wrestle a little with whether their attitude fits that definition.4. Would a Mormon serving in the presidency also be "too much?"
5. Are the views Griiffith expresses in his BYU Magazine article, which
relate exclusively to man's relationship with God and have nothing to do with
government or public policy, relevant in any way to a candidate's qualification
for office in the United States?6. If you think the answer to 5 is "yes," then does your attitude fall within
the accepted definition of bigotry as "the state of mind of a bigot?" That is, a person
obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred
and intolerance.
Lowell's essential question, plainly stated is, "Is there a difference between casting a vote in the Senate and voting booth? And if so, why is that not a form of bigotry?" There is a a difference between the Senate and the voting booth - accountability. A Senate vote is pubic and open for review, discussion, ridicule, and in extreme cases formal enforcment action in terms of the provisions of Article VI of the Constitution. The voting booth on the other hand may be the most private place in the entire nation and there is no one and nothing to hold you or I accountable in how we cast our ballots.
Which is where the word "bigotry" becomes, in my opinion, very important. You see, prevailing public sentiment matters to us whether we want to think so or not. It is an indirect form of accountability. If casting a vote against a Mormon, solely on the basis of religion, is generally viewed as "bigoted" it will serve as a check on the conscience of most voters. If, on the other hand, such a consideration is viewed as somehow "par for the course," voters will feel free to hold such considerations in their minds as they act.
That there are differences between African-American and Caucasian-American culture is an undeniable and inarguable fact in America. To argue to the contrary is to simply fly in the face of reality. And yet voting against a person of color on that basis would be undeniably considered a "bigoted" act. Now, while skin color is a matter of genetics, participation in black culture is not - that is a matter of personal choice and affiliation - just as religion is.
True conservatives are now barking, "Culture, well at least cultural values, IS a reason to vote against someone, and it's not bigotry." They'd be right, but the cultural values are the issue, not the skin color associated therewith. There are blacks that chose to hold those values and those that do not. The bigotry arises in using the too simple and formulaic "Black = NO Vote" when what is called for is a more sophisticated analysis of the candidate's positions and values.
And so it is with Mormons. The simple "Mormon = NO vote" is a form of bigotry.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
John Kerry: our U.S.soldiers in Iraq are lazy & dumb
The Dem. party is no longer the class of the working man; they are all milionaires: Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Emanuel, (Ted) Kennedy...& now, multi-millionaire MO Senate candidate Claire McCaskill wants to join their club. Let's hope MO voters will keep that from happening. This nation needs leaders who will stand up for our military; & MO needs Jim Talent. Missourians, do the right thing.
The Dem. party is no longer the class of the working man; they are all milionaires: Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Emanuel, (Ted) Kennedy...& now, multi-millionaire MO Senate candidate Claire McCaskill wants to join their club. Let's hope MO voters will keep that from happening. This nation needs leaders who will stand up for our military; & MO needs Jim Talent. Missourians, do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
