Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Craven County Republican Party.


Friday, December 30, 2005

Craven County Republican Party - 2005 Century Club Members

Craven County Republican Party
P.O. Box 13466
New Bern, NC 28561

The Craven County Republican Party thanks the Century Club members for their generous donations during the calendar year 2005.

2005 Century Club Members:

Charles & Peg Mitchell; New Bern, NC
Sandra Pinkston; Frisco, TX
Lucille Dicktel; New Bern, NC
Suzanne Green; New Bern, NC

Eddella Johnson; New Bern, NC
Cathy New; New Bern, NC

Tom & Joan Meutsch; New Bern, NC
John P. Wetherington; Dover, NC
Michael & Hazel Speciale; New Bern, NC

Richard & Judith Giddings; Dover, NC
Mary Ann Harper; New Bern, NC

James M Watkins; Cove City, NC
Anthony & MaryEllen Michalek; Havelock, NC
Steve Tyson; New Bern, NC

Trawick H. Stubbs,Jr; New Bern, NC
Bill & Donna Miner; New Bern, NC


Start 2006 with your Century Club Donation!

Click below to visit our Contribution page:

http://www.cravencountygop.org/contribute.html

Sincerely,

Steve Tyson
Steve Tyson,
Chairman

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

All the President's Spies (From The American Spectator)

All the President's Spies
By Jed Babbin
Published 12/19/2005 12:09:32 AM

There are politically motivated criminals in our government who should be unmasked and punished to the fullest extent of the law. These people have leaked some of our most sensitive secrets and damaged our national security for no reason other than to discredit President Bush. Forget the Plame nonsense. That -- according to a CIA assessment -- caused no damage at all. No, I'm talking about the leaks of the secret CIA detention facilities in Europe and elsewhere where terrorist detainees are kept. I'm talking about the leak of a top-secret satellite program, apparently by three U.S. senators. And I'm talking about last week's New York Times report about the NSA's domestic intelligence gathering effort that's paying off handsomely. Or was, until the leakers told the Times.

Friday, in a report that the White House asked not be published because it could jeopardize ongoing anti-terrorist operations, the Times revealed that in 2001 the president authorized the National Security Agency to collect intelligence from conversations routed through the United States and possibly including people within the United States. And the media feeding frenzy aimed at declaring George W. Bush a criminal started all over again.

It's pretty clear that NSA's domestic intelligence gathering was -- and is -- legal. But before we get to that, we have to set the context for this debate correctly, which is more than the Times, the Washington Post, or any of the other politico-media will do. We need only two data points to accomplish that.

First, the last time a war was fought on American soil, the president then didn't merely authorize intelligence gathering within our borders, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anyone held in military custody (even though we didn't yet have a base at Gitmo), and declared that anyone opposing the war would be tried and punished under martial law in military courts. Thank heaven that George Bush isn't as radical as Abraham Lincoln was when he signed that proclamation in September 1862. Or as radical as FDR was in interning Japanese citizens in World War II.

Second, the price of inaction in the war against terrorists is too high. We know, from Mansour Ijaz's accounts and from the admissions Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger has made in several interviews, that the Clinton administration turned down Sudan's repeated 1996 offers of bin Laden on a silver platter because its lawyers didn't believe we had enough evidence to indict him in a U.S. court. Instead of telling the lawyers to find a way to put OBL out of business, the Clintons took the easy way out their lawyers had provided and let bin Laden get away. Now, we have a president who apparently tells his lawyers what Andrew Carnegie once told his.

In what may be an apocryphal story, 19th century industrial baron Carnegie, in a long meeting with his planning staff, endured a few "you can't do that" objections from a new lawyer. Carnegie took the young man into the hall and fed him a dose of reality: "Young man, I don't pay you to tell me what I can't do. I pay you to tell me how I can do what I want to do." And that sums up President Bush's approach to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

FISA requires that intelligence gathering regarding conversations to which "U.S. persons" are a party can only be done pursuant to a search warrant issued (usually in secret) by the special FISA court, made up of sitting U.S. district court judges and located in the Department of Justice building in Washington.

Second, the FISA court issues warrants based on findings of probable cause, like other U.S. courts issuing criminal search warrants. There are too many situations -- like the one we were in before 9-11 -- in which too many possible terrorists are talking to each other and their helpers to sort them out one by one and get individual warrants. Which is why the law, and the regulations that implement it, allow the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court.

The regulations implementing FISA clarify the law's exceptions to the requirements for a FISA court warrant. U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive, dated July 27, 1993, is the primary regulation governing NSA's operations. It is a secret document. (We at TAS, unlike the NYT, never, ever, disclose government secrets that may damage national security. What follows is taken from a declassified version obtained from an open source.)

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

So FISA itself and USSID 18 provide a lot of swinging room for what the president ordered. If the people subjected to the intelligence gathering weren't "U.S. persons," if Attorney General Gonzales made certain findings (which he did, according to several accounts) and if the NSA went ahead because it reasonably believed it would lose significant foreign intelligence if it held its hand, the operation is legal. Period. Everyone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.

In his Saturday radio address, the president said that the NSA program he authorized has been reviewed over and over, and reauthorized by him more than three dozen times:

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.


Illegal? I don't think so. A good idea? No, a great idea. Many of the congressional Dems whining the loudest about the president breaking the law (such as Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Dem on the Armed Services Committee) were almost certainly among those who were briefed repeatedly on the program since it began in 2001. In short, the Dems' objections are as hollow as the people shouting them to the television cameras. Let Congress ask its questions, and answer some as well. (Such as why weren't they concerned about this when they were briefed on it four years ago?) But let the intelligence be gathered.

America has lived in the shadow of 9-11 for more than four years. Everyone expects more terrorist attacks on our shores, but none has yet occurred. One reason for that is probably the NSA domestic intelligence gathering program.

We can do a lot, and must do it all. Spying on aliens and some "U.S. persons" here in accordance with the law, asking our allies to spy on Americans overseas, sharing intelligence gathered abroad with law enforcement authorities here, and much more. Our Constitution and laws set broad bounds for intelligence gathering. We should do everything within those bounds. Everything.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

NC Buzz - December

     There seems to be so much dissention in our country today. In Washington, President Bush is being attacked from both sides of the Congressional aisle. The news media is in a constant frenzy, ignoring the positive, and attempting each day to top yesterday's bad news with something worse.
     Here in North Carolina, the Legislature seems to uncover one scandal after another, and House Speaker Jim Black is scrambling to keep his job.
     Next month we'll talk about some of the problems we are facing, and how our elected officials are handling them. But, for now, let's put them all aside. Let's celebrate the birth of Christ, count our many blessings, and share the true meaning of Christmas with our families and friends. And, please say a prayer for our brave servicemen and women.
     Merry Christmas!

The Demoschizocratic Party (From GOPUSA.com)

By Barbara J. Stock
December 20, 2005

It is difficult to sort out which psychological phase the Democratic Party is in from one day to the next. One day they want to fight the terrorists and the next day they want cut to run. To claim the hard line leftists are bipolar would be an understatement. Hard core liberals shriek not to accuse them of being unpatriotic while at the same time they claim America cannot win the war in Iraq. While steadfastly declaring that they are devoted to our men and women in uniform, a Democratic senator compares our troops to Nazis, a Congressman claims our soldiers are weak, and "Hanoi Jane" Fonda proclaims that our soldiers now have, "How to Commit Atrocities," as part of the military curriculum.

Reeling from the successful election in Iraq, Democratic strategists don't know how to respond when asked about the election. When questioned by a frustrated Tony Snow of FOX News, leftist spokeswoman Mary Anne Marsh insisted on repeatedly side-stepping the simple question put to her. Mr. Snow asked her to put the polls aside and just give her own opinion on the election in Iraq, but she could not do it. Like a doll with a string in her back, Marsh kept repeating, "The American people feel we are failing in Iraq and don't trust the president anymore." Just pull that string and you would get the same thing over and over. She looked foolish and Democrats do not speak for all of the American people.

One should also question some of the "polls" the leftists continue to quote. Perhaps feeling brave at the moment, Senator John Kerry made the comment that if the Democrats take back the House and Senate, impeachment proceedings against President Bush should begin. The Zogby poll is well known to those who follow such things. In a recent poll, Zogby found that 42% of Americans feel that if Bush lied about Iraq, he should be impeached. On leftists blogs and websites this number is cheered and gleefully compared to the relatively "low number" of people who wanted Bill Clinton impeached. That number was a mere 41%. That one lone percentage point makes all the difference in the vengeful and somewhat irrational minds of some of today's Democrats.

Congressman John Murtha continues to say that 80% of the Iraqi people want the United States military to leave Iraq at once. This is not substantiated by a recent poll done for the British Broadcasting Company. (BBC) When asked, "Thinking ahead to the next 12 months, what would be the best thing which could happen to Iraq?" American troops leaving Iraq was fourth on their list with only 5.7% of the people feeling that was important to them. That doesn't even account for all the Suni Muslims who one would think would the most eager to see the Americans leave their country.

Pursuing this question, it was re-worded and put to the people in a different way with little change in the results. When, "What would be the worst thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months?" was asked, the occupation not leaving Iraq remained fourth at 8.9% with terrorism coming in third at 11.5%. Obviously, the average Iraq citizen is more concerned about terrorists than American soldiers.

What this poll also shows is that John Murtha is wrong. Yet, he doggedly continues to make that statement. Murtha must know by now that he is making a false statement.

A recent ABC poll revealed that 57% of the American people want our troops to remain in Iraq until the country is stable and able to stand on its own. With 57% of the American people wanting us to finish the job and not abandon Iraq, Ms. Marsh must know that she, too, is not being honest.

The old adage of "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it," is at work here. Hard line leftist Democrats will continue to lie even in the face of overwhelming numbers to the contrary, in the hopes that some will believe the lies.

The latest "scandal" is that the president allowed international calls from known terrorists to American citizens to be tapped without first obtaining a wiretap court order. Often, these calls would come in with no time to run to a judge and get permission. We may never know how many lives have been saved by the quick action of our intelligence gathering agencies. In fact, the law only covers phones calls that start and end within the United States. Even the New York Times, which "broke" the story after having it for a year, admits that Bush broke no laws. But the leftists are in a frenzy declaring that Bush is not a "king" and must follow the Constitution.

The timing of this latest "bombshell" from the troubled Times is suspect. The good news from Iraq was threatening to overshadow the leftist agenda. Congress was going to be voting on renewing the Patriot Act, and there is a little book that James Risen has coming out. National security means nothing when a leftist has a new anti-Bush book to peddle. Success in Iraq must be shouted down.

The Democratic Party is in a sorry state. The hard working, blue collar party that my father was devoted to is dead. It has become a whining, lying, self-serving, white-flag-waving disgrace. Sooner or later all the lies will catch up with them. The successful election in Iraq made reasonable Americans ask themselves how the situation in Iraq could be so hopeless when so many smiling, happy people were proudly displaying their purple badge of honor. If Bush has no plan for Iraq as the Democrats insist, then what is it that is at work in Iraq right now? The president's poll numbers are on the rise and we can expect the leftists to get even more desperate and shrill. Even the tainted New York Times can't help them now.

President Bush is no longer on the defensive. When on the offensive, he is at his best and he becomes the man the leftists seem to fear and hate the most and the American people love. The leftists no longer have the stage all to themselves. They have become so frantic they now must team up with newspapers to discredit the president of the United States and assist the enemy once more. The battle is on for the "hearts and minds" of the American people and the leftists seem to be losing.

The truth is as simple as a finger that has been dipped in purple ink.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Election Schedule 2006

Candidate Filing Period
Opens February 13th, noon
Closes February 28th, noon
(SBE note: the changed dates for filing are effective January 1, 2003)

*Primary Election Day - May 2nd, 2006
Registration Deadline (books close) April 7th
One Stop Absentee Begins April 13th Ends April 29th
*Second Primary (if necessary) - May 30th, 2006
General Election Day - November 7th, 2006
Voter Registration Deadline (books close) October 13th
One Stop Voting Begins October 19th Ends November 4th

(*Dates are Subject to change due to acts of the General Assembly)

Source: Ms. Tiffiney Miller, Supervisor, Craven County Board of Election

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

The American Way

From the Wall Street Journal/Opinion Journal

The American Way
What does it mean that your first act on entering a country is breaking its laws?

Thursday, December 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

As Congress considers the Bush administration's guest-worker plan, as Republicans try to figure out what their immigration philosophy is, and as political observers parse the implications of yesterday's California House race, here are some small and human questions on immigration to the United States.

I recently found out through one of her daughters that my grandmother spent her first night in America on a park bench in downtown Manhattan. She had made her way from Ireland to Ellis Island, and a cousin was to meet the ship. It was about 1920. The cousin didn't show. So Mary Dorian, age roughly 20, all alone, with no connections and no relatives interested enough to remember her arrival in the new world, spent her first night in America alone on a bench, in the dark, in a strange country. Later she found her way to Brooklyn and became a bathroom attendant at the big Abraham & Straus department store on Fulton Street. (It's now a Macy's. I buy Christmas gifts there.)

Two generations after my grandmother arrived, I was in the Oval Office of the American president saying, "I think you oughta." And amazingly enough he was listening.

In two generations. Two.

What a country.

Am I proud of this? Sure. It's the American way to point out that your people went from zero to 60, or will, or can. It's the American way to acknowledge, too, that someone made the car you jumped into. There was an assembly line. My grandparents were ahead of me in that line, and the Founders were ahead of them.

Every time an American brags about where he came from and where he wound up, he's really complimenting the guys on the line.

In my case before there was the car there was a ship. I do not know the name of the ship that took Mary Dorian to America, and yet it gave me my future. I know she wore an inspection card attached to her clothing. I have such a card, encased in plastic, on a table in my home. It is the card worn by Mary Dorian's future husband's sister, who came over at the same time.

It says at the top, "To assist Inspection in New York Harbour." It notes dates, departure points, "Name of Immigrant." On the side there's a row of numbers that mark each day of what appears to have been a 10-day trip. Each day was stamped by the ship's surgeon at daily inspection. You got the stamp if you appeared to be free of disease.

You know how the card looks? Thin. An old piece of paper that looks vulnerable. I guess that's why I encased it in plastic, to keep it safe, because it's precious.

Here is what is true of my immigrants and of the immigrants of America's past:

They fought for citizenship. They earned it. They waited in line. They passed the tests. They had to get permission to come. They got money that was hard-earned and bought a ticket. They had to get through Ellis Island or the port of Boston or Philadelphia, get questioned and eyeballed by a bureaucrat with a badge, and get the nod to take their first step on American soil. Then they had to find the A&S.

They knew citizenship was not something cheaply held but something bestowed by a great nation.

Did the fact that they had to earn it make joining America even more precious?

Yes. Of course.

We all know it is so often so different now. Perhaps a million illegal immigrants come into the United States each year, joining the 10 million or 20 million already here--nobody seems to know the number. Our borders are less borders than lines you cross if you want to. When you watch videotape of some of the illegal border crossings on a show like Lou Dobbs's--who is not a senator or congressman but a media star and probably the premier anti-illegal-immigration voice in the country--what you absorb is a sense of anarchy, an utter collapse of authority.

It's not good. It does not bode well.

The questions I bring to the subject are not about the flow of capital, the imminence of globalism, or the implications of uncontrolled immigration on the size and cost of the welfare state. They just have to do with what it is to be human.

What does it mean that your first act on entering a country--your first act on that soil--is the breaking of that country's laws? What does it suggest to you when that country does nothing about your lawbreaking because it cannot, or chooses not to? What does that tell you? Will that make you a better future citizen, or worse? More respecting of the rule of law in your new home, or less?

If you assume or come to believe that that nation will not enforce its own laws for reasons that are essentially cynical, that have to do with the needs of big business or the needs of politicians, will that assumption or belief make you more or less likely to be moved by that country, proud of that country, eager to ally yourself with it emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?

When you don't earn something or suffer to get it, do you value it less highly? If you value it less highly, will you bother to know it, understand it, study it? Will you bother truly to become part of it? When you are allowed to join a nation for free, as it were, and without the commitment of years of above-board effort, do you experience your joining that country as a blessing or as a successful con? If the latter, what was the first lesson America taught you?

These are questions that I think are behind a lot of the more passionate opposition to illegal immigration.

There are people who want to return to the old ways and rescue some of the old attitudes. There are groups that seek to restore border integrity. But they are denigrated by many, even the president, who has called them vigilantes. The New Yorker this week carries a mildly snotty piece by a writer named Daniel Kurtz-Phelan in which he interviews members of a group of would-be Minutemen who seek to watch the borders with Mexico and Canada. They are "running freelance patrols"; they are xenophobic; they dismiss critics as "communists" and "child molesters."

How nice to be patronized by young men whose place is so secure they have two last names. How nice to be looked down on for caring.

And they do care, that's the thing. And pay a price for caring. They worry in part that what is happening on our borders can damage our country by eroding the sense of won citizenship that leads to the mutual investment and mutual respect--the togetherness, if that isn't too corny--that all nations need to operate in the world, and that our nation will especially need in the coming world.

This is what I fear about our elites in government and media, who will decide our immigration policy. It is that they will ignore the human questions and focus instead, as they have in the past, only on economic questions (we need the workers) and political ones (we need the Latino vote). They think that's the big picture. It's not. What goes on in the human heart is the big picture.

Again: What does it mean when your first act is to break the laws of your new country? What does it mean when you know you are implicitly supported in lawbreaking by that nation's ruling elite? What does it mean when you know your new country doesn't even enforce its own laws? What does it mean when you don't even have to become an American once you join America?

Our elites are lucky people. They were born in a suburb, went to Yale, and run the world from a desk. Which means this great question, immigration, is going to be decided by people who don't know what it is to sleep on a bench. Who don't know what it is to earn your space, your place. Who don't know what it is to grieve the old country and embrace the new country. Who don't know what it is to feel you're a little on the outside and have to earn your way in to the inside. Who think it was without a cost, because it was without cost for them.

The problem with our elites as they make our immigration policy is not that they have compassion and open-mindedness. It is that they are unknowing and empty-headed. They don't know, most of them, what others had to earn, and how much they, and their descendents, prize it and want to protect it.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," just out from Penguin, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.


LEGISLATORS JOIN CONGRESSMAN JONES TO UNVEIL 150,000 SIGNATURES

LEGISLATORS JOIN JONES TO UNVEIL 150,000 SIGNATURES URGING PRESIDENT TO PROTECT MILITARY CHAPLAINS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

"We're going to keep banging this drum until First Amendment rights are returned to our military chaplains."

Washington, D.C. -- In a press conference today on Capitol Hill, Third District Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) was joined by Reps. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Mike Conaway (R-TX) to unveil nearly 160,000 signatures of American citizens calling on the President to protect the First Amendment rights of military chaplains.

Colby May, Senior Counsel and Director of the Washington Office of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), presented seven hundred pages of signatures at the event. The ACLJ collected the signatures from American citizens from across the nation who expressed their support for an October 25th letter to the President, sent by Congressman Jones and more than seventy other Members of Congress, calling for the protection of the constitutional right of military chaplains to pray according to their faith.

Rev. Dr. Billy Baugham, Executive Director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, was also present at the press conference and described the "pandemic problem" of the suppression of the religious rights of military chaplains throughout the Armed Service. "This is going to destroy the chaplaincy," Dr. Baugham said.

"We're going to keep banging this drum until First Amendment rights are returned to our military chaplains," Congressman Jones said. "This is about protecting the right of all military chaplains of all religions to pray as they see fit."

"This is all about supporting freedom of speech and religious expression," Congressman McIntyre said. "Chaplains should be free to express the tenets of their faith. Prayer is the ultimate expression of free speech."

"True tolerance is not in pretending we have no differences," said Congressman Franks, who expressed the disservice it would be not only to chaplains, but to men and women serving in harms way who look to chaplains for comfort, if the speech of military chaplains is not protected.

For additional information please contact Kathleen Joyce in Rep. Jones' office at (202) 225-3415.



USA Article about billboard to be posted in Raleigh, NC

Billboard's Arab images spark accusation of racism
Group: Ad is about terrorism, security, not immigration

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20051214/a_billboard14.art.htm

An anti-terrorism campaign by a group that wants tighter restrictions on driver's licenses has angered Arab-Americans who say that an image on a planned billboard -- an Arab man holding both a grenade and a license -- is racist.

The billboard is the work of the New York-based Coalition for a Secure Driver's License, which plans to post an ad with the controversial image this month near North Carolina's state Capitol building in Raleigh. A second billboard is scheduled to be installed in late December or early January in Albuquerque, says coalition President Amanda Bowman...

Posted by C. Mitchell

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Sands of Christmas

by Michael Marks


I had no Christmas spirit when I breathed a weary sigh,
And looked across the table where the bills were piled too high.

The laundry wasn't finished and the car I had to fix,
My stocks were down another point, the Chargers lost by six.

And so with only minutes till my son got home from school
I gave up on the drudgery and grabbed a wooden stool.


The burdens that I carried were about all I could take,
And so I flipped the TV on to catch a little break.

I came upon a desert scene in shades of tan and rust,
No snowflakes hung upon the wind, just clouds of swirling dust.

And where the reindeer should have stood before a laden sleigh,
Eight Humvees ran a column right behind an M1A.

A group of boys walked past the tank, not one was past his teens
Their eyes were hard as polished flint, their faces drawn and lean.

They walked the street in armor with their rifles shouldered tight,
Their dearest wish for Christmas, just to have a silent night.

Other soldiers gathered, hunkered down against the wind,
To share a scrap of mail and dreams of going home again.


There wasn't much at all to put their lonely hearts at ease,
They had no Christmas turkey, just a pack of MREs.

They didn't have a garland or a stocking I could see,
They didn't need an ornament--they lacked a Christmas tree.

They didn't have a present even though it was tradition,
The only boxes I could see were labeled "ammunition."

I felt a little tug and found my son now by my side,
He asked me what it was I feared, and why it was I cried.


I swept him up into my arms and held him oh so near

And kissed him on the forehead as I whispered in his ear.

"There's nothing wrong, my little son, for safe we sleep tonight
Our heroes stand on foreign land to give us all the right,

To worry on the things in life that mean nothing at all,
Instead of wondering if we will be the next to fall."

He looked at me as children do and said, "It's always right,
To thank the ones who help us and perhaps that we should write."

And so we pushed aside the bills and sat to draft a note,
To thank the many far from home and this is what we wrote:

"God bless you all and keep you safe and speed your way back home.
Remember that we love you so, and that you're not alone.

The g ift you give you share with all, a present every day,
You give the gift of liberty and that we can't repay."


Michael Marks: "I freely submit this poem for reprint without reservation--this is an open and grateful tribute to the men and women who serve every day to keep our nation safe.




Monday, December 12, 2005

Executive Board mtg.

PLEASE NOTE    

 

NO EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER

logo.gif - 18475 Bytes

Return Home
Elected Officials
Executive Board
GOP History
Local Precincts
Event Calendar
GOP News
Get Involved
Contribute
Conservative Writers
Candidates 2006
Bulletin Board
Useful Links
Register to Vote
Contact Us
Members Only
Site Meter
Subscribe to
CCGOP Newsletter
Enter E-mail Address
REPEAT E-mail Address
Enter your Name
Subscribe      
Un-Subscribe
Newsletter Format :
Plain Text
HTML         
  

Privacy Statement: We will not sell, rent, barter or give your email address to anyone.



Submission
Instructions