4 Democrats Have one Last cHance to Keep tHeir promises

5 sHeLby Gop to open county QuaLifyinG

6 obamacare: act ii

8 enforcement sHouLD be top priority

featured article:

Obamacare: act iipage 6

featured article:

Obamacare: act iipage 6

As has become a Christmas tradition for our family in recent years, I write a short essay and then orally give it during our observance of the special season. The topic, obviously, focuses on the meaning of Christmas. As this Christmas season approached and just recently passed, I contemplated the passing of another decade. What happened over the past 10 years since we anticipated the approaching year 2000?

Ten years ago, we were entering a new decade, entering a new century, and fur-thermore, a new millennium. We found ourselves in the 21st century. With all the advances of technology, momentary disappointment emerged when we realized we were not yet living in the age of the Jetsons. An even more difficult concept was that we were now in the Third Millen-nium. Confusion remains as to whether that was in 2000 or 2001.

For at least the year preceding the turning of the calendar to 2000, the prevailing subject of much conversation and com-merce was the dreaded Y2K. Lest we for-get, the phenomenon encompassed fears that computers would not transition from 1999 to 2000 correctly and that chaos would ensue. As no disaster occurred, perhaps it proved that so much of the civilized world didn’t realize it had enough to be concerned about without conjuring up a disaster.

Fast forward ten years to 2010, and we are burdened now by those obsessed with another element of unsubstantiated fear. That fear is global warming, or what is more dubiously cited as climate change. The global warming theory, or what I pre-fer to describe more as a theology, is one that, although warmly (pun intended) em-braced by the liberal media, Hollywood, and the political left, has recently come under justifiable suspicion. The point I am making is the similarity, contrast, and

paradox of the time we are in presently, and this fear of Y2K a decade earlier.

Ten years ago, we were in the last year of the second term of the Clinton adminis-tration. While Clinton did survive to that second term, it was only two years into his first term that the Republican revolu-tion, led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, occurred. The result of the ’94 election was the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress. Later in the year 2000, the presidential election would pit Republican nominee, and eventual two-term president, George W. Bush against the Democrat’s intended heir-apparent, then-vice president Al Gore, Jr. The election was most contentious, one in which the media unashamedly promoted Gore, and one that was concluded only weeks afterward in what was clearly the most controversial election in American history. Nevertheless, Bush was elected and in 2004 would face re-election and prevail over Sen. John Kerry, the Demo-crat nominee.

Returning to the subject of fear, one of a more tangible nature would materialize when on Sept 11, 2001, the first-ever strike of a foreign enemy occurred on U.S. soil. Life, as we knew it, changed as the result of the tragic events of that day. On the medical front, we were confronted with many diseases during the past 10 years. These include the U.K. foot and mouth disease as well as mad-cow disease (also and coincidentally, originated in the U.K.). Flu was a popular disease of the decade in its various forms, including, but not limited to, bird and swine flu. Ultimately, world events of the past decade would find our nation engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2006, Republicans suffered losses in the mid-term Congressional election, and then further losses in 2008, including the ultimate office, the presidency. Admit-

Chairman’s CornerBy Freddy Ard

Editor-in-Chief Freddy Ard

Executive Editor Copy Editor Matt Fridy Alan Reyes-Guerra

Associate Editor Features Editor Bob Hess Jessica Breland

Creative Editor Calendar Editor Laura Joseph Gene Weingarten

Managing Editors Jeff Vreeland, Andrew Plaster

Photographers Tom Fridy, Jessica Breland

Contributing Editors Beth Chapman, Kimberly Fridy, Ann Leopard, Andrew Plaster

Cam Ward, Joe Sarver

Paid for by the Shelby County Republican Party

1920 Valleydale Road, Suite 154 Birmingham, AL 35244

205-994-6497 • www.shelbycountygop.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS2 cHairman’s corner

3 QuarterLy executive meetinG notice

4 Democrats Have one Last cHance to Keep tHeir promises

5 sHeLby Gop to open county QuaLifyinG

6 obamacare: act ii

8 enforcement sHouLD be top priority

9 sHeLby resoLution

10 in tHe KitcHen witH patsy riLey

tedly, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, certainly had historic implications, most notably that of the first black president. Unfortu-nately, the election of President Obama placed us squarely in the most left-leaning and socialist agenda in the history of our representative republic.

Closer to home, here in Alabama, with the results of the 2002 general election, the governor’s mansion was occupied once again by a Republican. With the help of a huge margin from Shelby County, Alabamians elected Bob Riley as gover-nor. Governor Riley was rewarded with a second term in 2006, and has proven to be arguably the greatest governor in the history of our state.

We return again to the early days of 2010, and the political and public policy realm encompasses unprecedented conditions. Despite the seemingly endless policy errors of a Democratic Congress and the current administration, the resolve of decent, hard-working Americans is undeterred. Mega-corporation bailouts, trillion-dollar stimulus packages, government takeover of the nation’s largest automaker, and the attempted takeover of health care and one-fifth of America’s economy, did not come without a response in kind. The movement most commonly known as the Tea Party, galvanized millions of disaf-

fected Americans, many of which were heretofore apolitical, who had enough of the government’s intrusion and disruption of their lives and of the economy.

Late-2009 election victories for Repub-licans in New Jersey and Virginia, along with the recent stunning results in Mas-sachusetts that landed Republican Scott Brown to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s seat, prove that momentum is just as applicable to the political world as in sports. Republicans, while discouraged by the 2008 election results, and further-more frightened by the policies enacted by the Obama administration and the Reid-Polosi Congress, now enjoy renewed hope and optimism.

That same optimism is evident here in Alabama and Shelby County. Only a couple of weeks ago, the prevailing chang-ing political winds blew through Alabama. Freshman Congressman Parker Griffith, barely a year in office as a Democrat, switched parties. More than a half dozen GOP candidates contending for the nomination for governor are optimistic that the governor’s mansion will remain in Republican hands in January 2011.

Here in Shelby County, Republican domi-nance continues, with thirty-six elected officials with either residency or jurisdic-tion in the county holding public office. In

addition to the usual constitutional offices on our ballot in 2010, locally, three circuit judges, a district judge, and the district attorney all face re-election. Sheriff, superintendent of education, coroner, and two school board places are also on the 2010 ballot. Finally, the 2010-2014 term members of the Shelby County Repub-lican Party Executive Committee will be decided this election cycle. Qualifying opens officially for local office, including executive committee, on February 9, and closes April 2.

Just as in the events that occur within our family, there are lots of gaps, good and bad, happy and sad, to fill in but I’ll leave all that for another time. There were goals fulfilled, missions accomplished, dreams dashed, hopes, thrills and disap-pointments. Some have been lost, some found, some things given up, and some things restored. While we can look back over the past decade, we can’t linger because of the magnitude of work that lies ahead. Hopelessness need not prevail in our county, and we are indeed continually optimistic. That optimism will be further heightened by including you as a vital part of the Shelby County Republican Party and the expectations placed on us this vital election year.

On Thursday, February 11, at 7pm, The Shelby County Republican Executive Committee will hold its’ quarterly meeting at the Shelby County Services building in Pelham. Rather than having one guest speaker, an “open mike” will be held where Republican primary candidates in attendance will be allowed to introduce themselves and speak to the Executive Committee. Also, qualifying for membership on the 2010-2014 term of the Executive Committee will be held at the close of the meeting.

Please join us as it’s most important that we learn who the candidates are that will be running in this crucial 2010 election. The Shelby County Services building is located at 1123 County Services Drive, off I-65 in Pelham.

QUARTERLY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

FEBRUARY 117:00 P.M.

County Services Building1125 County Services Drive, Pelham

“Open Mike” Sessions

* Open to the public

“open mike” sessions at February 11 Quarterly meeting

When the 2010 legislative regular session begins on Tuesday, January 12th, the Democrat leadership that currently controls the Alabama State Legislature will have one last chance to honor the written “covenant” they presented to the voters of Alabama prior to the 2006 election. They have had three chances to keep the promises they publicly made to the people of Alabama. They failed to do so each time.

Less than three months before the last election, Democrat leaders held press conferences in four Alabama cities on August 16, 2006 to announce an election campaign platform they called their “Covenant for the Future.” The Democrats presented this covenant to the voters of Alabama as their party’s top legislative priorities if re-elected and given control of the State Legislature.

In their covenant, Democrat legislators promised to end the practice of PAC-to-PAC transfers. This is how powerful special interests and politicians hide the

DemoCrats have one last ChanCe to keep their promises

true source of campaign contributions – by passing money through multiple political action committees until voters have no idea who is really funding candidates. Quoting directly from the Alabama Democratic Party’s Covenant for the Future, they promised to “stop all PAC to PAC transfers.” In the three legislative sessions following the 2006 election, they either let reasonable bills die in committee or tried to pass legislation that would have simply rerouted the money through other untraceable channels.

The Democrats’ covenant included a promise to pass legislation to require lobbyists to fully disclose what they spend wining and dining elected and appointed officials. Legislation to fulfill that promise never saw the light of day.

Their covenant also included a promise to “eliminate all ‘pork’ projects from state budgets,” yet the budgets they passed in each of the previous three legislative sessions have millions of dollars in hidden pork funding.

Why does this failure to be faithful to campaign promises matter? It matters because the lack of accountability and transparency in Alabama state government has contributed substantially to the imbedded power structure that has run the state into a financial ditch. It matters because the ability to hide the true source of campaign contributions by laundering money through the hundreds of PACs allows powerful special interests such as gambling and the education union to buy politicians without the public ever knowing.

And it matters because Alabama ranked fourth in the nation in public corruption, based on convictions of public officials from 1997 through 2006. In 2006 alone, Alabama ranked third with 51 convictions of public officials. One reason we “earned” this despicable ranking is because our Legislature has done little to make government more open and accountable or more difficult for special interests to buy and control our elected officials.

While many candidates have already been on the campaign trail for months, the election season 2010 only officially gets underway next week. Candidate qualifying opens in Shelby County on Tuesday, February 9, according to a resolution passed by the Shelby County Republican Executive Committee back in November. The committee will hold its quarterly meeting at 7:00 pm on Thursday, February 11, and candidates are urged to be present to file their qualifying forms at the close of that meeting.

“We are anxious to get the primary season rolling” says Freddy Ard, Shelby County GOP Chairman. “There is

great optimism and enthusiasm among Republicans, and the primary process is the first step,” Ard added. He notes that insofar as Shelby County elected offices are concerned “we pretty much have our county elections decided in the primary, which frees our county party to make an impact on statewide elections.” Elected offices on the ballot in 2010 include three circuit judges, one district judge, the district attorney, sheriff, coroner, superintendent of education, and two places on the board of education. Candidates for the judicial and district attorney offices file their forms with the Alabama Republican Party, while candidates for the remainder file with

the county party. The 138 places on the Republican 2010-2014 term of the executive committee are also filled during the primary. “For those who want to identify with our party and be part of its leadership and activities, now is the time to join us” Ard added.

Candidates are encouraged to pick up their primary packets at the Community Room in the Shelby County Services Building located at 1123 County Services Drive in Pelham on February 11. For questions regarding qualifying, candidates may contact the chairman by calling (205) 821-5916.

shelby County gop to open CanDiDate QualiFying

Democrats were not the only ones who made written promises to the voters. Republican legislative candidates as well as Gov. Bob Riley provided Alabama voters with written campaign promises that included commitments on issues that were practically identical to commitments made by Democrat candidates. All three campaigns strongly emphasized accountability and transparency as critical to the effort to establish honest and trustworthy government.

Entering the 2007 legislative session, Democrats had a 23-12 super majority in the State Senate and a 63-42 super majority in the State House of Representatives. With the Democrats holding a super majority in the Legislature for the past three years, and with the Republican legislators and Gov. Riley on record in support of these reforms, they should have easily passed legislation to make Alabama’s government more honest and accountable. In the process, Democrats would have kept every one of those promises in their covenant. But the

record of the last three legislative sessions speaks clearly about what has been done to honor their “covenant.” Sadly for the people of Alabama, it is a record of broken promises.

This is not a partisan attack. Some will undoubtedly read this and reach an entirely wrong conclusion. If the Republican Party had majority control of the Alabama State Legislature and failed to deliver on their promises, they would be just as guilty and I would be writing about their broken promises.

With an overwhelming super majority in both the Alabama State Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrat leadership in the Legislature will have zero excuses if they do not deliver on what they promised in 2006. The 2010 legislative session is their last chance to stand and deliver. The people of Alabama can only hope that they do so.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Journalists all over Washington, D.C., have already written the big story for Febru-ary. The headline will be “Democrats Score Major Win on Health Care.” The lead: “After a bruising battle, President Obama has accomplished what Harry Truman and Bill Clinton couldn’t. His friends and foes alike see comprehensive health-care reform as the most signifi-cant change in American government in decades. . . . White House sources say that while the president is of course pleased by the historic achievement, he intends to continue his recent focus on the economy and jobs in the months ahead, and signs of economic recovery will soon result in a political recovery for the Democrats.” Passage of health legislation is probable, though not nearly as certain as the Wash-ington consensus would have it. But the extensive debate over the legislation has revealed more opportunities for conserva-tives than anyone imagined possible a year

Obamacare: act ii whatever happens in the house, this Debate is Far From settleD By Ramesh Ponnuru & Yuval Levin

ago. Moreover, that debate will not end if the Democrats’ bill passes — and in fact, the opportunities may increase. The resilience of conservative attitudes on the part of the public is the chief reason those opportunities exist. The reigning assumptions a year ago were that the financial crisis had made the public much more favorable toward government activism than it had been during the age of Reagan, and that the new president’s eloquence would allow him to rally the public behind his agenda. Neither assump-tion proved true. The polls show a public that is skeptical, even resistant, toward big government in general and this health legislation in particular. President Obama’s statements on health care have failed to arrest, let alone reverse, the growth of opposition. As the new year began, the chief political argument impelling congressional Demo-

crats to enact the legislation was no longer that it would be popular, but that passing the bill would let them change the subject. Passage would indeed be historic: There is no modern precedent for such sweeping legislation’s becoming law without a public consensus in its favor. Republicans were supposed to be power-less over health legislation, marginalized in the House and unable to sustain a filibus-ter in the Senate. They were nonetheless able to drive much of the public debate. They did so by resisting the temptation to accept the inevitability of a liberal health-care overhaul and make a deal that would have merely tinkered with it around the edges — the only sort of deal that could have been on offer, given the balance of forces in Washington. The Democrats were not even willing to meet the Republi-cans halfway on tort reform, which would not have required them to abandon any of their bill’s core elements.

The Left, upset about the Senate’s abandonment of its cherished dream of a health-care system run directly by the government, has taken to complaining about that body’s unrepresentative nature. And they’re right; the Senate does not reflect the public’s views. It is well to the left of them. In retrospect, we can see the 2006 and 2008 elections as repudiations of Republican performance rather than as affirmations of contemporary liberal-ism. The financial crisis, in particular, gave the Democrats their large majorities in Congress, so it’s no surprise that they are finding it hard to use those majorities to advance an agenda completely unrelated to that crisis. If the Senate were a truly representative body, it would have voted down the health-care bill. Some liberal hotheads, frustrated by the bill’s slow progress and many compro-mises, urge the abolition of the filibuster, or even of the Senate. But for the rest of us, solutions to the problem of unrepre-sentative legislation lie closer to hand. The first is for the public to reduce the power of organized liberalism in the 2010 and subsequent elections. The second is for Congress to reject (or, if it passes, for a future Congress to repeal and replace) the terribly flawed health-care legislation liber-als are now championing. Repeal is commonly judged impossible. Conservatives have long worried, and lib-erals have hoped, that nationalized health insurance would permanently shift our politics to the left: Americans would grow accustomed to depending on the federal government for their health coverage, and would attribute the system’s failures to underfunding rather than structural flaws. But Democrats have designed this year’s legislation in a way that makes this scenario unlikely to unfold anytime soon. They wanted the Congressional Budget Office to report that their plan would spend less than $1 trillion over the next ten years, so they rigged the bill to gener-ate such a report. They achieved that goal in part by making tax increases and Medicare cuts go into effect several years before the bill’s benefits do. This sequence is likely to create years of political vulner-ability for the new scheme. Voters will see mostly pain, not gain, from the legislation in its first four years — and four years is a very long time in politics. Conservative

politicians will not have to threaten exist-ing benefits in order to press for repeal, and they will be able to point to the bill as an example of the Democrats’ misplaced priorities while championing their own version of health-care reform. In recent months, many Democrats have operated from the assumption that they have to pass this bill to avoid political disaster, while Republicans have operated from the assumption that if the bill passes, they have lost the health-care fight perma-nently. Both assumptions now appear to be wrong. Instead of moving off the stage, health care, along with the economy, looks likely to remain atop the domestic agenda throughout this congressional-election year, especially if the Democrats pass a bill that the public hates and that will also put a drag on the economy. Most voters still want what they have always wanted on health care: lower costs, higher take-home pay, and greater security — all accomplished with the least pos-sible disruption to their current insurance arrangements. The Democrats are poised to pass a massively expensive bill that achieves essentially none of this. Repub-licans have tried to argue (as they should do much more forcefully over the next ten months) that a few changes to tax law and regulation could address these concerns much better, by fostering the develop-ment of a market in individually owned insurance policies. Those reforms would also increase the number of people with insurance. This modest and constructive agenda would not require fines on people who opt out of insurance, federal boards to decide what constitutes appropriate medical practice, or huge new taxes that stifle eco-nomic growth. Such an argument, which can serve as a means of op-posing Obamacare now and of calling for its replace-ment with actual health-care reform if it passes, is the obvious path for Republicans in 2010, since it will connect public unease with Obamacare to the case for economic growth through fiscal restraint. The Democrats’ economic

platform is of a piece with the party’s assumptions that it can run Americans’ health care from Washington and that the appropriate response to public doubts is to hunker down. Passing the misbegotten bill will not remove the albatross from around the Democrats’ necks as long as Republi-cans persist in highlighting its many flaws. We have already seen this type of strategy work with a massively expensive bill that delivered very little in practice: Obama’s stimulus package has grown less and less popular since it passed, the opposite of what its backers thought would happen. In their rush to pass something quickly, and their desire to mask the costs of their plan behind a moderate CBO score, the Democrats have created a bill that just might turn health care into a Republican issue. If Republicans embrace the oppor-tunity by refusing to change the subject, by pressing the kinds of gradual concrete reforms they have been talking about all year, and by understanding how making a persistent case for conservative health-care reform can play to their strengths, they may find themselves with a great opportu-nity in 2010. We stand at the end of the beginning of the health-care fight, not the beginning of the end. And more than ever, it’s a fight the Right can win.

© 2010 by National Review, Inc., 215 LexingtonAvenue, New York, NY 10016.

Reprinted by permission

Alabamians are presently witnesses to an intriguing power struggle. On one side is Governor Bob Riley, whose administration is attempting to enforce laws against illegal gambling. On the other are the operators of electronic bingo machines, whose efforts to sway public perception against the enforcement actions directed by Governor Riley are in high gear. Media ads attempting to distract attention from the real issue abound.

There has been and likely will continue to be, much debate and even controversy surrounding the issue of gambling in Alabama. Some believe it immoral while others cite the collective good to be derived from the prospective revenues generated from the various forms of gambling activity. Relying on gambling revenues contend some, is bad public policy while others believe it to be a harmless activity for which government should not impose any restriction. None of these opinions, views, or positions are relevant in the present stand-off. We would all be well-advised to set aside our personal views or preferences on the subject of gambling in favor of a proper context to these current events.

On January 29, 2010, and previously on November 13, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the machines in question are not bingo at all but illegal gambling devices. If those machines are illegal, shouldn’t action to curtail such operations (irrespective of persons or influence) along with the enforcement

of the laws of our state be encouraged, applauded, and even demanded of those elected in representative service and leadership?

The Supreme Court released a six-part test to determine if a game meets the legal definition of bingo. For instance, the court ruled that human interaction has to be involved and that a machine cannot play a game of bingo for a person. The person must be an active participant. In 62 of 67 counties, Republican and Democratic prosecutors have stopped slot machine gambling. Yet some illegal facilities remain in operation because some public officials refuse to enforce the law, perhaps due to intimidation by powerful casino bosses.

Governor Riley has for seven years demonstrated a record of initiative, leadership, and decisiveness in every area of his administration. In fact, his success in the area of business development has been phenomenal by any measure. His administration has demonstrated integrity of the highest level without even a hint of scandal. The Riley administration has enjoyed exceptional success with his own legislative agenda, a significant feat given the Democrat majorities in both the Alabama Senate and House of Representatives. As a result, both the public in general and the media in particular, have applauded this leadership. With regard to enforcement of the law in the matter of illegal electronic bingo operations, the governor deserves no less consideration.

enForCement oF law shoulD be priority

DiD you know?• At least 16,000 electronic bingo

machines are in operation across the state.

• VictoryLand, near Montgomery in Macon County with 6,000 bingo machines, is ranked sixth-largest casino in the United States in the number of machines, according Casino City network.

• The state Legislative Fiscal Office estimates each bingo machine would generate an average $150 a day in gross revenue.

• Alabama’s newest casino, run by the Poarch Creek Indians near Atmore, has 1,600 bingo machines in a 50,000-square-foot casino.

• Bingo is allowed in Alabama under a patchwork of local amendments or laws. Some places it’s legal; some places it’s not.

Finally, whether you believe that gambling is good or bad, wrong or right, we should all be in agreement that we should follow the law and furthermore, that no one is above the law.

Freddy Ard is Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Party, a member of the Alabama Republican Party Executive Committee, and has served as Shelby County Commissioner and Helena City Councilman.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Shelby County Republican Committee at its regular quarterly meeting assembled in Pelham, Alabama on November 10, 2009, that it hereby acknowledges and ratifies any actions of the Alabama Republican Executive Committee taken with regard to the 2010 Republican Primary Election, accepting on behalf of the Republican Party of Alabama, and coming under, to the extent therein indicated, the primary election laws of the State of Alabama for the 2010 elections.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that each person desiring to be elected as a nominee of the Republican Party for any county office in Shelby County shall file with the Chairman or Secretary of the Shelby County Republican Executive Committee on or subsequent to Tuesday, February 9, 2010, but no later than 5:00 PM (CDT) on Friday, April 2, 2010, a Declaration of Candidacy in substantially the form attached hereto, and simultaneously therewith pay to the order of the Shelby County Republican Party the amount computed as 2% of the sum of the annual salary and any fixed expense compensa-tion applicable to the office, or $50.00 for any non-remunerative office, including membership in the Shelby County Repub-lican Executive Committee.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, in the event a candidate is unable to pay any qualification fee prescribed above, such candidate may petition the Executive Committee for an alternative qualification procedure.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Shelby County Republi-can Executive Committee is hereby direct-ed to appoint an Election Committee for the Shelby County Republican Primary Election. The Election Committee shall consist of five (5) members and shall be appointed on or before Tuesday, February 9, 2010, and any vacancies which there-after occur on said Election Committee shall be promptly filled by the Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Execu-

tive Committee. The Election Committee shall meet on the call of the Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Executive Committee, a majority of its members shall constitute a quorum and the action of a majority of its members shall be binding upon, and constitute action of, the Election Committee; provided that action consented to by at least three of the members of the Election Committee by telephone, verbally, or in writing and without a formal meeting, shall be binding upon, and shall constitute action of the Election Committee, but a description of such action shall be reduced to writing and promptly mailed to each member of the Election Committee. The Election Com-mittee shall have and possess the following powers: (a) to review any declaration of candidacy, to determine if the candidate meets the qualifications prescribed in this resolution, and to direct the Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Execu-tive Committee not to certify a candidate which the Election Committee finds does not meet such qualifications; (b) to fill vacancies in any nomination for any public or party office with regard to the primary or other election and the general elec-tion where such vacancy exists by reason of death, resignation, disqualification, revocation or otherwise, and; (c) to hear, consider, and decide and generally to have all the rights, duties, powers, and authority of the Shelby County Republican Execu-tive Committee with regard to the contests presented to said county committee under the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 16, Title 17 of the 1975 Code of Alabama, as amended, including the right to prescribe appropriate rules governing any such contest, provided, however, that such rules shall grant to the parties to any such con-test their basic Constitutional rights and privileges and shall not conflict with the provisions of said Article 2.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that persons desiring to qualify for more than one office which is to be elected or nomi-nated shall file a separate Declaration of Candidacy as to each such office, and shall

pay the qualifying fee prescribed herein for each such office. No candidate shall be required to sign any so-called “loyalty” pledge, no candidates shall have been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States of America, the State of Alabama, or of any other state, and all qualifying fees shall be uniform within the county for the same office and shall not exceed the amount as specified by law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Shelby County Re-publican Executive Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to appoint from time to time such subcommittees as deemed appropriate to look after, super-vise, and conduct the primary or other election and the general election which are the subject of this resolution; to receive returns from, canvass, and tabulate and declare the results of, and certify to any primary or other election held under the laws of the State of Alabama; and gener-ally to delegate to and confer upon any such subcommittees the right, power, and authority to do and perform any act or duty which the Shelby County Republican Executive Committee could do or perform with regard to such primary or other elec-tion, or the general election.

Copies of this resolution and call shall be delivered or mailed to the Judge of Pro-bate Court of Shelby County, Alabama, to the Secretary of State of the State of Alabama, to the legislative district (pre-cinct) chairman of each legislative district of Shelby County, Alabama, and to the Chairman of the Republican Party of Alabama.

RESOLVED, this, the 10th day of November, 2009, by a vote of the Shelby County Republican Executive Committee.

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE SHELBY COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

Freddy Ard, Chairman Andrew Plaster, Secretary

resolution2010 republiCan primary eleCtion in shelby County

Thai Coconut Soup 1 T vegetable oil2 T grated fresh ginger (do not substitute)1 stalk lemon grass, minced (use fresh, not a paste; available at Whole Foods)2 tsp red curry paste4 c chicken broth3 T fish sauce1 T palm sugar (available at Asian Super-market, can substitute light brown sugar)3 (13.5 ounce) cans coconut milk8 oz. fresh shiitake mushrooms, sliced8 oz. firm tofu or cooked chicken, sliced2 T fresh lime juicesalt to taste4 T chopped fresh cilantro

Heat the oil in a large pot over medium heat. Cook and stir the ginger, lemongrass, and curry paste in the heated oil for 1 minute. Slowly pour the chicken broth over the mixture, stirring continually. Stir in the fish sauce and palm sugar; simmer for 15 minutes. Stir in the coconut milk and mushrooms; cook and stir until the mushrooms are soft, about 5 minutes. Add the tofu/chicken and cook for 2 more minutes. Stir in the lime juice; season with salt; garnish with cilantro.

with matt FriDy

Matt Fridy, vice-chairman for the Shelby County GOP and an avid cook, thoughtfully shared one of his most often requested recipes, Thai Coconut Soup. A firm believer in fresh, authentic ingredients, Matt suggests that anyone who wants to make his “famous” soup utilize Asian grocery stores for the best selection of ingredients for optimum flavor.