This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We'll meet on Saturday, April 13th from 9:00-10:30 am at a new location, the Grill at Legacy Ridge Golf Course. It's located at 10801 Legacy Ridge Parkway in Westminster. See the map on the next page to see exactly where it’s situated. You’ll be able to hear from your local Board of Education members about what’s going on in their school district with Q&A time. This was one of the best meetings we had last year and you don’t want to miss out, especially with school board elections in November. Admission is only $7 per person and you can pay your 2013 dues of $20. The doors open at 8:30am so come join us and bring a friend or two for a good time with like-minded people. A continental breakfast with donuts, pastries, fruit, coffee, orange juice, and water is included.
NSRF upcoming calendar in 2012: May 11 – Our local Colorado State Legislators will update us as the current session ends June 8 -- Adams County Commissioner Erik Hansen explains how the new districts for commissioner will work July 13 – Immigration Issues August 10 – RTD and FasTraks update for the North Metro Line September 14 – Local candidates running for Board of Education and City Council October 12 – City Council members updating us on their local issues November 9 – Possible candidates for Governor or U.S. Senate
If you have a smart phone, use a bar code app for the QR code on the left, it will take you to our web site, www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.com
This newsletter has a conservative Republican viewpoint. It may or may not reflect the views of the NSRF Board of Directors. It is intended for the thoughtful consideration of our members to inform and educate, and as potential discussion starters.
Table of Contents:
If you haven’t checked out our web site, these are the latest articles that have been posted April calendar Winning Through Losing: The Art of Concession Colorado Department of Education Standards and Instruction Common Core State Standards Initiative How to get involved in local politics How to get involved with the Republican Party Adams County voter information Elected officials NSRF Board of Directors NSRF $20 yearly membership application
If you haven’t checked out our web site (www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.org), these are the latest articles that have been posted:
As lead sponsor in House on gun legislation, Rep. Diana DeGette appears to not understand how they work The Colorado Model & The Left’s Stratagem for Turning Red States to Blue Adams County commissioners cap stormwater fees temporarily Promises, Promises: Obama’s IOUs start coming due Carroll: A billion-dollar bet for Colorado schools? Drunk Drivers vs Gun Control. You decide? Another Tax Proposal: Democrats Propose State Run Insurance Plan Colorado ammunition bill inspires 2nd proposal to overturn it A Common Core Primer: What Is It and Why Is It a Problem? Recall Drives Aim to Punish Democrats for Gun Control Bills Pistol group cancels Colorado competition because of new gun laws Behind The Curtain: Who Is Pushing the $1B Tax Increases? 2
Colorado democrats drive ahead on license bill Teachers union, former auditor claim budget mismanagement in Adams 12 Wayne Lapierre batters David Gregory: ‘Why doesn’t NBC News’ report that Chicago ranks ‘dead last’ in federal gun law enforcement? Since Day 1 Gun rights backers vow court fight against new Colorado laws Ronald Reagan’s advice Meet John Hickenlooper, now-endangered Democrat Governor of Colorado KrisAnne Hall puts Liberal Attorney in his place Young Republicans seek different message for 2016 Explosive Exchange at Gun Hearing Between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein Scott Noble on the Energymaker show Court Upholds Teacher Removal: Adams 12 Board Vindicated, Taxpayers Pay Adams County residents petition to repeal storm water fee The president and the Democrats weigh in on the budget chaos Ted Cruz Sets the Record Straight on Guns Path To Prosperity: America’s Two Futures – How We Can Respond to our Debt Crisis Rep. Kevin Priola March Legislative Update US National Debt Clock Colorado Sheriff Alleges Extortion by Colorado State Democrat Leadership over the Gun Bills Colorado Poll: Gun Control Politically Dangerous for Democrats Colorado gun bills: Maraton session stirs strong emotions
Winning Through Losing: The Art of Concession
04/06/2013 As a former Leftist, I’m often asked how to debate the Left and win people to Conservatism. Tell me if this sounds familiar: You feel so right on an issue; so confident in your views. But suddenly, you find yourself sputtering and stammering against arguments that—though ludicrous--just sound better than yours. Ever been there? I’ll bet you have. And there’s a reason for it. You see, the Left enjoys two big advantages over us in debate: First, having little to no conscience, they’ll say anything—thus forcing us into constant defense mode, having to expose lie after lie. This exhausts us, while keeping us from making our points (and yes, Lefties do this on purpose). Second, since their highest goal is to control people, they know the value of hiding that goal. This they do through selectively conceding points… …and that, my friends, is the topic of today’s article. Before I describe this tactic, why is it the Left’s advantage? Why indeed! Fact is, this tactic works better for us than Leftists (I use it all the time), but Conservatives have come to view any concessions in debate as surrender. “Give an inch, and they’ll take a mile!” they say—and on foundational issues of principle, they’re quite right. The Left really does work incrementally, but we mustn’t let that scare us out of sound strategy. Don’t ever let your opponent dictate the game. Trust me on this. That’s where Democrats seize the
advantage. Let me show you a great example of Selective Concession (hereon, “SC”): In yesterday’s article, I ranted against a line from President Obama’s Gun Control speech in Denver. He allowed an opening, so I took it—and besides, I was furious. But most of his speech was outstanding, because it employed SC in ways that, I assure you, frustrated any Conservatives who were listening. I guarantee that many Conservatives felt outmaneuvered; outsold. Here’s an early passage: “From the beginning of this effort, we’ve wanted law enforcement front and center in shaping this discussion and the reforms that emerge from it — because law enforcement lives this every day. Law enforcement are the first to see the terrible consequences of any kind of violence, certainly gun violence — lives lost, families broken, communities that are changed forever. They’re very often in the line of fire. The law enforcement knows what works and what doesn’t, and so we wanted that experience and that advice.” Notice how Obama sets up his proposals as coming from a trusted source—law enforcement. Submerging his notorious arrogance, Obama selectively concedes mastery of the topic to someone else. The result? Obama comes off as the fellow learner, not the lecturer—and who doesn’t trust a fellow learner? Fellow learners don’t control us, right? So before even discussing points, Obama uses SC to frame himself not as an advocate, but as a humble student wishing only to share the trusted wisdom he has received. Sound good? Oh, he’s only getting started. Let’s fast-forward: “There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights. I’ve got stacks of letters in my office from proud gun owners, whether they’re for sport, or protection, or collection, who tell me how deeply they cherish their rights, don’t want them infringed upon, but they still want us to do something to stop the epidemic of gun violence. And I appreciate every one of those letters. And I’ve learned from them.” Got that? More SC, now reframing himself as learning from traditional opponents, not advocating against them. Moving on: “Aurora is very much a purple city. It’s got a majority Republican city council; a majority of the state legislators are Democrat. But they came together understanding that out of this tragedy there had to be something that made sense. And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” Ah, now he’s selectively conceding the notion that only Democrats have the answers. This creates an air of bipartisanship (dishonestly of course, but remember; Democrats don’t do conscience). By the way, the Democrats in his audience (which was virtually all Democrat) knew full well that he didn’t really believe in Republican virtues. As a former Democrat, I can say this will full confidence. It’s like atheist Democrats not minding when their candidates act like Christians in order to win elections. Democrats don’t care about anything but winning, since only winning can get them control over their fellow citizens. In fact, Democrats are so well-trained in this deception, they even applaud these lines. Moving on: “Now, some say, well, we already have background checks. And they’re right. Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” Now he’s selectively conceding an actual point—and look how well it works! Look how open he appears; how
reasonable! There’s a couple more of these coming up, but right now, I want to share how the Left view s Selective Concessions: They see them as pure gold. For a skilled Leftist (not the clumsy ones we sometimes witness on Hannity), the first task in forming any argument is to find those areas of your opponents’ views that you can concede, because these comprise the gold that will purchase your victory. Whereas the Right foolishly tries to hide or evade SC, the Left seeks it out. Worse yet, when we hide or evade our opponents valid points, it only makes those points look all the better when our opponents voice them. Basically, the usual strategy on the Right is “Debate Suicide.” We don’t see the gold. And then, we find ourselves dumbfounded by the effectiveness of an Obama speech proposing absolutely wretched policies on Gun Control. Let me give just one more example from Obama’s speech, and try to imagine how uncomfortable and outmaneuvered you’d feel as a Republican watching this at work in a room full of open-minded, independent employees: “How do you rebuild some trust? And I told the story about two conversations I had. The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa. And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland. And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too. If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home — you don’t know who these people are and you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond. I can see why you’d want some guns for protection.” Oh no! Now he’s conceding a point! He’s giving an inch, so we’ll take a mile! Hardly. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing (actually, his writers do, but it’s the same thing). By conceding this point, he gives much greater legitimacy to all his other points. Do you get the idea? SC is a miracle device; that gold lining you can find in the cloud of your opponent’s argument. Look for stuff on which you agree and lead with it—it’s quite simple. Could I defeat Obama’s speech? Oh easily, and so could you! Throughout his speech, Obama made points that were rife with poor reasoning, and the way to attack them was by undercutting his assumptions —showing his statements to be unreliable—but unfortunately, I don’t have time to describe this here. Another time, perhaps. Instead, let me share an example of how I’ve used SC—on this same topic. This is a paraphrase, of course—I can’t remember the whole talk. But a couple days ago, I was faced with a hardcore Leftist who was preaching Gun Control to those around him. Rather than talk over him or beat him down, I let him rage on for a couple minutes. Then, I spoke (I’ll call him “Bob”): Me: “Bob, it sounds like you’re saying that you don’t feel comfortable knowing there are guns all over the place. Well, good! I’d be worried if you got a thrill from the presence of guns!” Bob: “Absolutely! You never know when someone will have a bad day, and I don’t want them packing when they do!” Me: “And of course, we want to make as sure as possible that guns aren’t in the hands of dangerous people, right? I mean, while anyone can have a bad day, we usually have knives nearby, but we don’t just grab them and start slicing away. The big concern is the crazies, like the kid who shot up that theatre.” Bob: “Oh sure! We need background checks.” Me: “What would you want those checks to look for?”
Bob: “Well, criminal histories, I guess. Drug use—“ Me: “—How about psychosis? You know, mental illness, psychiatric counseling—“ Bob: “Oh sure, those are important.” Me: “I agree! I mean, every one of those recent mass killings were committed by psychotics who showed lots of signs, but we just ignored those signs because our system keeps protecting this group or that, this condition or that…we need to stop protecting groups and just look at each person.” Bob: “Absolutely.” (Notice how Bob’s temper has gone down. And while those around us were previously being drawn in to Bob’s views and distrusting Conservatives, they now see me—a known Conservative—as the more reasonable one. Thanks to SC, they’ll trust almost anything I say—though unlike a Leftist, I won’t use that to unfair advantage) Me: “Look, bottom line, I want fewer people being killed. But we have to keep two things in mind: First, all these mass killings happened in Gun Free Zones. Every one of these mass killers specifically targeted places where no one would shoot back. Second, none of these killers would even have thought of obeying laws that limit how much ammo you can carry. I mean, does anyone here seriously think that the kid who entered a Gun Free theatre with intent to kill innocent lives would actually restrict his ammo because, you know, he wouldn’t want to break the law? Seriously?” (laughter) Me: “So let me ask a few really simple questions: 1. If virtually all mass killings happen in Gun Free Zones, why would we want more Gun Free Zones?
2. Until we can guarantee that criminals will be limited by these laws—and no one’s dumb enough to think that—then these restrictions will only guarantee that the victims will be less armed than those who would do them harm. Do we really want that? 3. One Senator—who happened to be a Democrat, but I’d feel the same whatever his Party—actually lectured young mothers on how much ammunition would be “appropriate” for protecting their children from intruders. I mean, is that his call? Jeez, I think that should be the mother’s call! How does he know how many intruders will enter her home, or whether they’ll limit themselves to legal ammo levels? 4. What if—before we start disarming victims and lowering the ammunition carried by law-abiding citizens— what if we instead secured our border to stop much of this inflow of drugs and violence into our country? And once we close off the borders, what if we then actually enforced the laws already on the books and started disarming these gangs and crazies? Right now, we’re securing nothing, disarming no one who ignores our laws, and instead we’re disarming the easy people who want to obey the laws—but they’re not the ones I’m worried about! I mean, are you?” (By this point, even the Leftist was nodding in agreement--which surprised me. The others were completely won over. To finish it off, I used SC one more time) Me: “But hey, background checks are great! Guns are too dangerous to be sold to just anyone, right? I guess my only concern is, who would oversee the checks? I mean, does anyone here wake up in the morning saying, ‘Man, I sure trust my government!’” (laughter) Me: “So let’s get a good system in place, but let’s also be careful just how much power we’re giving to politicians. I mean, they always look the other way when their buddies are involved. I know that’s walking a difficult tightrope, but the safety of kids and communities is worth more than simplistic answers where we just disarm the easy people. We can do better.”
Understand, I’m pretty experienced in this, but you don’t have to say all the right things. What really matters is Selective Concession. Just look for that gold in any conversation--those areas where you can grant validity to your opponent, and how you enjoy learning from people on all sides—and the rest of your points will sound 1000% better! In so doing, you won’t be giving up on your principles; you’ll be protecting them. And maybe…just maybe…your opponents can start sputtering and stammering.
Propaganda from the Common Core pages:
Myths About Content and Quality: General
Myth: Adopting common standards will bring all states’ standards down to the lowest common denominator, which means states with high standards, such as Massachusetts, will be taking a step backwards if they adopt the Standards. Fact: The Standards are designed to build upon the most advanced current thinking about preparing all Students for success in college and their careers. This will result in moving even the best state standards to the next level. In fact, since this work began, there has been an explicit agreement that no state would lower its standards. The Standards were informed by the best in the country, the highest international standards, and evidence and expertise about educational outcomes. We need college and career ready standards because even in high‐performing states – students are graduating and passing all the required tests and still require remediation in their postsecondary work. Myth: The Standards are not internationally benchmarked. Fact: International benchmarking played a significant role in both sets of standards. In fact, the college and career ready standards include an appendix listing the evidence that was consulted in drafting the standards and the international data consulted in the benchmarking process is included in this appendix. More evidence from international sources will be presented together with the final draft. Myth: The Standards only include skills and do not address the importance of content knowledge. Fact: The Standards recognize that both content and skills are important. In English‐language arts, the Standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare. Appropriately, the remaining crucial decisions about what content should be taught are left to state and local determination. In addition to content coverage, the Standards require that students systematically acquire knowledge in literature and other disciplines through reading, writing, speaking, and listening. In Mathematics, the Standards lay a solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, and decimals. Taken together, these elements support a student’s ability to learn and apply more demanding math concepts and procedures. The middle school and high school standards call on students to practice applying mathematical ways of thinking to real world issues and challenges; they prepare students to think and reason mathematically. The Standards set a rigorous definition of college and career readiness, not by piling topic upon topic, but by demanding that students develop a depth of understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students and employees regularly do
Myths About Content and Quality: English‐language arts
Myth: The Standards suggest teaching “Grapes of Wrath” to second graders. Fact: The ELA Standards suggest “Grapes of Wrath” as a text that would be appropriate for 9th or 10th grade readers. Evidence shows that the complexity of texts students are reading today does not match what is demanded in college and the workplace, creating a gap between what high school students can do and what they need to be able to do. The Common Core State Standards create a staircase of increasing text complexity, so that students are expected to both develop their skills and apply them to more and more complex texts. 11
Myth: The Standards are just vague descriptions of skills; they don’t include a reading list or any other similar reference to content. Fact: The Standards do include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the Standards. The exemplars of high quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities and have been very well received. This provides teachers with the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use – while providing an excellent reference point when selecting their texts. Myth: English teachers will be asked to teach science and social studies reading materials. Fact: With the Common Core ELA Standards, English teachers will still teach their students literature as well as literary non‐fiction. However, because college and career readiness overwhelming focuses on complex texts outside of literature, these standards also ensure students are being prepared to read, write, and research across the curriculum, including in history and science. These goals can be achieved by ensuring that teachers in other disciplines are also focusing on reading and writing to build knowledge within their subject areas. Myth: The Standards don’t have enough emphasis on fiction/literature Fact: The Standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare. Appropriately, the remaining crucial decisions about what content should be taught are left to state and local determination. In addition to content coverage, the Standards require that students systematically acquire knowledge in literature and other disciplines through reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
Myths About Content and Quality: Math
Myth: The Standards do not prepare or require students to learn Algebra in the 8th grade, as many states’ current standards do. Fact: The Standards do accommodate and prepare students for Algebra 1 in 8th grade, by including the prerequisites for this course in grades K‐7. Students who master the K‐7material will be able to take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. At the same time, grade 8 standards are also included; these include rigorous algebra and will transition students effectively into a full Algebra 1 course. Myth: Key math topics are missing or appear in the wrong grade. Fact: The mathematical progressions presented in the common core are coherent and based on evidence. Part of the problem with having 50 different sets of state standards is that today, different states cover different topics at different grade levels. Coming to consensus guarantees that from the viewpoint of any given state, topics will move up or down in the grade level sequence. This is unavoidable. What is important to keep in mind is that the progression in the Common Core State Standards is mathematically coherent and leads to college and career readiness at an internationally competitive level.
Myths About Process
Myth: No teachers were involved in writing the Standards. 12
Fact: The common core state standards drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts from across the country. In addition, there were many state experts that came together to create the most thoughtful and transparent process of standard setting. This was only made possible by many states working together. For more information, please visit: www.corestandards.org Myth: The Standards are not research or evidence based. Fact: The Standards have made careful use of a large and growing body of evidence. The evidence base includes scholarly research; surveys on what skills are required of students entering college and workforce training programs; assessment data identifying college‐ and career‐ready performance; and comparisons to standards from high‐performing states and nations. In English language arts, the Standards build on the firm foundation of the NAEP frameworks in Reading and Writing, which draw on extensive scholarly research and evidence. In Mathematics, the Standards draw on conclusions from TIMSS and other studies of high‐performing countries that the traditional US mathematics curriculum must become substantially more coherent and focused in order to improve student achievement, addressing the problem of a curriculum that is “a mile wide and an inch deep.”
Myths About Implementation
Myth: The Standards tell teachers what to teach. Fact: The best understanding of what works in the classroom comes from the teachers who are in them. That’s why these standards will establish what students need to learn, but they will not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standards. Myth: The Standards will be implemented through NCLB – signifying the federal government will be leading them. Fact: The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state‐led effort that is not part of No Child Left Behind and adoption of the Standards is in no way mandatory. States began the work to create clear, consistent standards before the Recovery Act or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act blueprint were released because this work is being driven by the needs of the states, not the federal government. Myth: These Standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools. Fact: The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CoreFacts.pdf
How to Get Involved in Local Politics
Sometimes it's hard to imagine one person making a difference in this world. A lot of challenges face our society. Some are huge, some are more manageable, but all require the action of at least one person. Start making the world a better place by being that person on the local level. Get involved in local politics and see the world change before your eyes.
1 Participate in town meetings. Mingle with local, state and federal politicians. Learn
about the issues facing your community. Meet others who support the same causes you do. Voice your opinion and see what offices in politics appeal to you.
2 Show your support of the political system by voting in every election. More importantly, bring others to
the polls with you. Talk about the issues with people and inspire them to let their opinions be heard through their votes .
3 Help out at a local political office. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican, Democrat or a member of
the Green Party, all political parties need volunteers. Work one on one with them and learn the political process. Network with others involved in local politics. Get in on the ground floor and learn the ropes. Look into volunteering for organizations who promote causes like the environment, health care, campaign finance or immigration reform .
4 Start your own political organization. Whether it's a local off-shoot of a nationwide campaign or it's
specific to a cause no one has addressed politically, get it going. Involve your friends and family. Have rallies, fundraisers, seminars or even a bowling night. The idea is to spread your passion for the cause and get others to join you.
5 Start a petition on the Internet. Instead of knocking on doors or stopping people at the mall, get people
involved with an online petition. Involve yourself in online political blogs. Post your opinions and get others to join in with you.
6 Put yourself out there and run for local office. Civic offices come up for re-election all the time. Find a
position you know you could excel in and start your campaign. Call your local political party and ask if there are offices up for election. Take to the streets and let people know you are the person for the job.
Read more: How to Get Involved in Local Politics | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_2053523_get-involved-localpolitics.html#ixzz2HEtY2OYz
How to Get Involved in the Republican Party
There are a variety of reasons to get involved in the efforts of the Republican Party. You might believe in gun rights, be pro-life, or wish for fewer taxes. Of course, you may simply think that the Democratic Party’s choices for candidates at the presidential, senatorial, or congressional level are not th e best choices. There are any number of reasons and issues to get involved with the Republican Party, so when you are ready to join, follow these steps.
1 Have a valid voter
registration card and if you don’t have one, get one. If you feel strongly about this party and their beliefs, register as a Republican. However you don’t have to register as a Republican if you don't want to. You can register as an NPA, (no party affiliation) as an Independent or even a Democrat.
2 Do as much research as possible on the Republican Party. Make sure that the issues the party
represents are issues that you believe in and that the candidates representing the party are people you hold in high regard.
3 You may wish to support a particular candidate for local government, or state government or you may 4 When you contact the appropriate party office, make sure you have a plan for how you want to be
want to support Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate , or Congress and perhaps even the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. Once you have figured out at what level you wish to participate, contact the appropriate party office and ask how you can get more involved.
involved in the Republican Party. Your involvement could be as simple as making a donation, or you could volunteer your time by handing out literature or manning a phone at a call center. Most people involved in the Republican Party are volunteers. You may wish to become some sort of aid or spokesperson for a particular candidate as well, but these positions are usually staffed by people close to the candidate. These positions usually require some sort of education in politics, law or the media.
5 Joining a Republican state party might be just the ticket for you. You can volunteer to answer phones,
pass out literature, or something as simple as making a donation. This is all that is required to join your state's Republican party. Also, your Republican state party will deal with issues in your state that may be closer to your areas of interest.
6 Join the Republican National Committee. You can go right to their website and enter in your
information (see Resources). Tell them a little bit about yourself and what you would like to do for their organization. You may want to become a volunteer or even take a job with the Republican National Committee.
Read more: How to Get Involved in the Republican Party | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_4501412_get-involvedrepublican-party.html#ixzz2HF9YIzvN
NSRF Board of Directors & Term expires John Lefebvre-2012 President Dana West-2014 Vice President Jan Hurtt-2012 Treasurer Phil Mocon-2012 Secretary Brian Vande Krol-2013 Membership Gary Mikes-2013 Membership Leonard Coppes-2013 Membership Wanda Barnes-2014 Membership Kevin Allen-2014 Membership
Email Address email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com ph7ss@Q.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org WandaLeaBarnes@aol.com email@example.com
Telephone 303-451-5558 303-280-0243 303-451-0934 303-452-4709 303-466-4615 303-252-1645 303-287-9145 303-373-1521 303-319-3011
Join the North Suburban Republican Forum on the Internet and Facebook: http://www.northsuburbanrepublicanforum.org/ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=95611986640&_fb_noscript=1
Yearly membership dues are $20, while a couple is $30. Make checks payable to North Suburban Republican Forum (NSRF). It only costs $3 per person to attend the monthly meeting. A continental breakfast and beverage (coffee, tea, orange juice or water) is included. A membership application is located on the last page. Fill it out and bring it along with you.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from our monthly newsletter, send an email with your name and subscription instructions in the body to: info@NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.org
The North Suburban Republican Forum
NSRF Membership Application
We meet on the second Saturday of each month to discuss politics from 9:00-10:30am at the Legacy Ridge Clubhouse at 10515 Stuart Street in Westminster. Doors open at 8:30am. Join us and get involved! A continental breakfast is provided with coffee, tea, orange juice and bottled water. Http://www.NorthSuburbanRepublicanForum.com Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: ____________________________________________________________Zip: _____________________ Best phone number to reach you: H/W/C______________-________________-________________________ Email: __________________________________________________________@_______________________ How did you hear about the NSRF? ____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________ ______ New member ______ Current member renewal ______ Individual Membership $20 per calendar year ______ Family Membership $30 per calendar year for couples ______ Deluxe $56 individual/$66 family per year includes 12 monthly fees + yearly dues Paid via __________ cash __________ check #__________ Today’s date: _____________________________________________________________________________ Received by NSRF board member: ____________________________________________________________
If you have a smart phone, use a bar code app to scan this QR code. It will take you to our web site.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.