Four facts, a bit of personal opinion, a smattering of soap boxing, but an essay worth reading by all, especially if you are, or are preparing to step into the current anti-gun hysteria.
Gun myths busted: Automatic weapons, buying guns online, background checks, assault rifles and other fictions of the liberal media
Especially of note is "Myth #5". The Second Amendment was designed to protect the citizens of the United States from the possible tyranny of the newly created federal government. This has never been more important than now, as we prepare to embark
upon a fusillade of freedom repressing legislation and executive action.
Our founders, fresh from a scrape with the King of England, and personally having experienced the hands of oppression, were naturally distrustful of the potential abuse of power from our experimental new government. The experiment continues and we are seeing the signs of repression coming at us with increasing velocity.
I urge you to invest the time to read (or re-read) The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America, and, if you can get your hands on one, any historical textbook (printed before 1960) or any collection of texts by any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Invest the time to get a fresh, renewed perspective of how this country came to be and the fundamental reasons for its success (to date). Those fundamental causes of success are under increasing fire from our President and from the existing federal establishment.
In this season of sound bite news, alarming acceptance of "internet truth" and a decreasing attention spans, it is critical that we seek the truth and avoid the looming "freedom cliff". Put down your (ironically termed) Smart Phone and look up! There is a world of truth outside of your 4" screen.
If you have not discerned it by now, with a trifle of digging, you will discover that the President, the members of Congress, and the government as an entity do not have your personal best interest at heart. Their concerns are money and power, generated by votes coddled from "warm fuzzy" and "Where's mine?" recipients of government largesse.
It will only take one or two Supreme Court appointments of liberal Justices to throw out the Second Amendment and to reduce or freedoms to pre-Revolutionary War status. At least one of those appointments will occur during Barack Obama's second term.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Friday, April 13, 2012
"545 People"
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years. 
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
" Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not ava ila ble to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!"
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
" Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not ava ila ble to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!"
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
fast and furious response by Senator Cornyn
I received this email today from Senator John Cornyn regarding the criminal activities of the Justice Department relating to the Fast and Furious debacle. This is the complete transcript of the email.
Dear Mr. Larson:
Thank you for contacting me about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Fast and Furious operation. I share your concern and appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.
As you are aware, recent congressional investigations have revealed the existence of a controversial "gun-walking" program operated by the ATF in Phoenix, Arizona. The ATF, despite its mandate to curtail gun trafficking activities, was actively funneling firearms to drug cartel gun buyers. The ATF has stated that the Fast and Furious operation was an attempt to target and track drug cartel leaders; however, the agency admits that they lost track of thousands of firearms in the process. Many of these firearms turned up at crimes scenes on both sides of the border, including at the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona and during a January and April 2010 seizure of 60 guns in El Paso, Texas.
I wrote to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder following press reports of an alleged Texas-based "gun-walking" program similar to the Fast and Furious operation. In this letter, I demanded answers regarding additional media reports that revealed that ATF managers who directed the Fast and Furious operation were offered new positions in the ATF’s Washington headquarters. Attorney General Holder and Justice Department officials must be held accountable, and until they provide answers regarding all alleged gun-walking operations, it is inconceivable to reward those who spearheaded this disastrous operation with new assignments in Washington.
Furthermore, I introduced an amendment to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2112) that will bar taxpayer funds from being used by the Justice Department to conduct gun-walking programs similar to the Fast and Furious operation, and I am pleased that this amendment passed with unanimous, bipartisan support in the Senate. This bipartisan effort is just the first step towards ensuring that such a foolish operation can never be repeated.
I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working to provide strict oversight of the Obama Administration. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
Friday, October 07, 2011
"competent christian vs competent non-christian"
In an interview with CNN, mega church pastor Robert Jeffress said Republicans shouldn't vote for White House hopeful Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon and described the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult".
Are Mormons a "cult"? Based upon the Biblical standard of one true God, they are not a "Christian" denomination as defined by the protestant faith. Their "Jesus" is not Jesus, the Biblical Son of the One True God, but another man altogether. Their religion is based upon the premise that man may become "god", by following the precepts of their faith. They may well follow " a Christ", but he is not The Christ as defined in the Holy Bible.
Mormonism Research Ministry
Stepping back to the central question of whether or not a Bible believer should vote for a Mormon, or for any non-Christian, I think we need to separate our intentions. Are we electing a civil leader or a religious leader? The Constitution is quite clear that our government shall establish no religion" and "no religious test shall ever be required" for public office; I think we need to set the issue aside unless and until we can make a clear determination of "who follows what". At least, in Romney, we know what we're getting, as opposed to so many "Christians on the surface" who vote and represent us in a manner clearly contradictory to the teachings of the Bible.
Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article Six (part three) - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That being said, I would not cast a ballot for an avowed atheist because this candidate clearly would be an immoral person and that would be reflected in every decision he or she made. "Immoral" in this context is defined by me as subscribing to no definable standard of conduct.
If the choices are a "hypothetical christian" (as in Obama) vs a "cult christian", (as in Romney), I think we have to let the issue of religion drop and look to their platform on the issues alone. Clearly, from the perspective of a protestant Bible believer, neither candidate will reflect the God of Abraham and Isaac, God the Father, "I Am".
"And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants." ~ Genesis 28:13
Are Mormons a "cult"? Based upon the Biblical standard of one true God, they are not a "Christian" denomination as defined by the protestant faith. Their "Jesus" is not Jesus, the Biblical Son of the One True God, but another man altogether. Their religion is based upon the premise that man may become "god", by following the precepts of their faith. They may well follow " a Christ", but he is not The Christ as defined in the Holy Bible.
Mormonism Research Ministry
Stepping back to the central question of whether or not a Bible believer should vote for a Mormon, or for any non-Christian, I think we need to separate our intentions. Are we electing a civil leader or a religious leader? The Constitution is quite clear that our government shall establish no religion" and "no religious test shall ever be required" for public office; I think we need to set the issue aside unless and until we can make a clear determination of "who follows what". At least, in Romney, we know what we're getting, as opposed to so many "Christians on the surface" who vote and represent us in a manner clearly contradictory to the teachings of the Bible.
Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article Six (part three) - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That being said, I would not cast a ballot for an avowed atheist because this candidate clearly would be an immoral person and that would be reflected in every decision he or she made. "Immoral" in this context is defined by me as subscribing to no definable standard of conduct.
If the choices are a "hypothetical christian" (as in Obama) vs a "cult christian", (as in Romney), I think we have to let the issue of religion drop and look to their platform on the issues alone. Clearly, from the perspective of a protestant Bible believer, neither candidate will reflect the God of Abraham and Isaac, God the Father, "I Am".
"And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants." ~ Genesis 28:13
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Exodus 3:14
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Tea Party
I am curious why some of my friends are opposed to the "Tea Parties" that have spread across the American political landscape in recent years. I have not visited a Tea Party gathering but I have read of them and their philosophies and am, in general, in line with their thinking.
The TeaParty.net site stated this:
Our mission is to recruit like-minded Americans to the Tea Party movement in order to advance the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty at all levels of government through promotion and education.
The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as
Limited federal government
Individual freedoms
Personal responsibility
Free markets
Returning political power to the states and the people
The San Antonio Tea Party had this to say:
I am in favor of these Constitutionally minded tenants and hope to attend a local meeting sometime in the near future in order to see if the fuss I'm hearing in the news media is real, or just another distraction from the vastly liberal minded media.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The TeaParty.net site stated this:
Our mission is to recruit like-minded Americans to the Tea Party movement in order to advance the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty at all levels of government through promotion and education.
The Tea Party movement is a grassroots movement of millions of like-minded Americans from all backgrounds and political parties. Tea Party members share similar core principles supporting the United States Constitution as the Founders intended, such as
Limited federal government
Individual freedoms
Personal responsibility
Free markets
Returning political power to the states and the people
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The San Antonio Tea Party had this to say:
Mission of the San Antonio Tea Party
“ to restore government by and for the people”
We the People …
RECOGNIZE …
that God grants to all people certain unalienable rights,…
that people in turn grant to governments their consent to be governed, and…
that government’s role is defined by the people to preserve those rights.
that people in turn grant to governments their consent to be governed, and…
that government’s role is defined by the people to preserve those rights.
We the People …
ACKNOWLEDGE …
the concept of American Exceptionalism, that the United States of America is a “city upon a hill,” a beacon of good at home and abroad.
We the People …
DEFINE…
the mission of the San Antonio TEA Party, Inc., is to educate and advocate for…
maintenance of a strong national defense to retain our National sovereignty,…
protection of individual rights and liberties while promoting personal responsibility, morality, and religious expression,…
strict adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law, and …
exercise of limited government, sound fiscal policies, and free enterprise.
maintenance of a strong national defense to retain our National sovereignty,…
protection of individual rights and liberties while promoting personal responsibility, morality, and religious expression,…
strict adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law, and …
exercise of limited government, sound fiscal policies, and free enterprise.
We the People …
COMMIT to…
remain non-partisan in our efforts, …
ensure government policies and actions are in keeping with our mission objectives, and …
hold our government officials accountable to …
ensure government policies and actions are in keeping with our mission objectives, and …
hold our government officials accountable to …
We the People!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
meeting my expectations
So, here's the thing; I will never find a politician who meets all of my expectations and agrees with all of my personal philosophies, and neither will you. I haven't even discovered a "Founding Father" who meets all of my points!
The best we can hope for is to find candidates who agree with most of our key issues. The best we can do, in voting with a logical, emotionless participation, is to make a list of issues that are important to us and seek out those who agree by the largest percentage. The alternative is to not vote at all.
I admit I tend to vote predominately Republican and that's because the party platform, both locally and nationally supports most of my hot issues. I have voted for Democrats on occasion, primarily for local Judges and county law enforcement, and a Libertarian here and there.
I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph and I believe in His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus. I will not support any candidate who is not ready to fight to protect my 1st Amendment right to worship freely and to exercise my beliefs in peace. The argument about the "separation of church and state" is not supported by the Constitution of the United States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ The First Amendment to The Constitution of The United States
I am wholeheartedly against abortion and I will not cast a vote for any candidate who has shown a history, inclination or vocalized support for abortion. If all the candidates for a particular office support the legalized sanction of fetal murder, I don't vote for any candidate.
I favor candidates who take a tough, no nonsense stand on crime and punishment. When the laws of our land are not enforced by pacifist judges, weak prosecutors and ineffective local law enforcement, i look for someone who is not afraid to speak up and stand for public and personal safety.
I support the Second Amendment right of citizens to freely own, possess and carry guns. I believe every moral minded, law abiding, mentally sound American should be carrying a weapon at all times.
If you study the early periods in our history and culture (pre-1900) you will find a minimal presence of violent crime against individuals and society. Justice was swift and hard and folks felt, and were, for the most part safe in their homes and communities. Crimes were few and criminals were swiftly caught and punished.
"The society of late twentieth century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense − club or spear, broadsword or long bow, rifle or Bowie knife. It also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, fairness, deference to authority and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts, or revolvers on their hips, It is a fair bet you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy he dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit. Today, discourtesy is commonplace precisely because there is no price to pay for it." ~ Samuel Francis via Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 1, No. 1 2/53
It was an armed populace that freed us from the tyranny of an oppressive King and it is an armed populace that helps to keep the wolves of foreign aggression from these shores.
I believe that the idea for this nation was sound, that the Constitution is a workable ethic and that those who would desire to live here, in peace, should subscribe to the same. Those who would enjoy the freedoms of living in America and who are ready, willing and able to abide by the laws of the land are welcome. Immigration is not a hot issue with me, but I understand the strain of financially supporting the non-tax paying residents of our nation and I look for candidates who offer sound, compassionate, workable solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. I believe, at a minimum, that candidates for citizenship in the United States should be able to read and speak English to the degree necessary to comprehend and follow the laws and customs of our country, to complete legal forms (drivers license applications, etc.) and to vote using the same ballot I use.
The best we can hope for is to find candidates who agree with most of our key issues. The best we can do, in voting with a logical, emotionless participation, is to make a list of issues that are important to us and seek out those who agree by the largest percentage. The alternative is to not vote at all.
I admit I tend to vote predominately Republican and that's because the party platform, both locally and nationally supports most of my hot issues. I have voted for Democrats on occasion, primarily for local Judges and county law enforcement, and a Libertarian here and there.
I believe in God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph and I believe in His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus. I will not support any candidate who is not ready to fight to protect my 1st Amendment right to worship freely and to exercise my beliefs in peace. The argument about the "separation of church and state" is not supported by the Constitution of the United States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ The First Amendment to The Constitution of The United States
I am wholeheartedly against abortion and I will not cast a vote for any candidate who has shown a history, inclination or vocalized support for abortion. If all the candidates for a particular office support the legalized sanction of fetal murder, I don't vote for any candidate.
I favor candidates who take a tough, no nonsense stand on crime and punishment. When the laws of our land are not enforced by pacifist judges, weak prosecutors and ineffective local law enforcement, i look for someone who is not afraid to speak up and stand for public and personal safety.
I support the Second Amendment right of citizens to freely own, possess and carry guns. I believe every moral minded, law abiding, mentally sound American should be carrying a weapon at all times.
If you study the early periods in our history and culture (pre-1900) you will find a minimal presence of violent crime against individuals and society. Justice was swift and hard and folks felt, and were, for the most part safe in their homes and communities. Crimes were few and criminals were swiftly caught and punished.
"The society of late twentieth century America is perhaps the first in human history where most grown men do not routinely bear arms on their persons and boys are not regularly raised from childhood to learn skill in the use of some kind of weapon, either for community or personal defense − club or spear, broadsword or long bow, rifle or Bowie knife. It also happens to be one of the rudest and crudest societies in history, having jubilantly swept most of the etiquette of speech, table, dress, hospitality, fairness, deference to authority and the relations of male and female and child and elder under the fraying and filthy carpet of politically convenient illusions. With little fear of physical reprisal Americans can be as loud, gross, disrespectful, pushy, and negligent as they please. If more people carried rapiers at their belts, or revolvers on their hips, It is a fair bet you would be able to go to a movie and enjoy he dialogue from the screen without having to endure the small talk, family gossip and assorted bodily noises that many theater audiences these days regularly emit. Today, discourtesy is commonplace precisely because there is no price to pay for it." ~ Samuel Francis via Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 1, No. 1 2/53
It was an armed populace that freed us from the tyranny of an oppressive King and it is an armed populace that helps to keep the wolves of foreign aggression from these shores.
I believe that the idea for this nation was sound, that the Constitution is a workable ethic and that those who would desire to live here, in peace, should subscribe to the same. Those who would enjoy the freedoms of living in America and who are ready, willing and able to abide by the laws of the land are welcome. Immigration is not a hot issue with me, but I understand the strain of financially supporting the non-tax paying residents of our nation and I look for candidates who offer sound, compassionate, workable solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. I believe, at a minimum, that candidates for citizenship in the United States should be able to read and speak English to the degree necessary to comprehend and follow the laws and customs of our country, to complete legal forms (drivers license applications, etc.) and to vote using the same ballot I use.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
in simplest terms
author unknown
In Simplest Terms: Why The U.S. Was Downgraded
Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
author unknown
In Simplest Terms: Why The U.S. Was Downgraded
- U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
- Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
- New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
- National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
- Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
- Annual family income: $21,700
- Money the family spent: $38,200
- New debt on the credit card: $16,500
- Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
- Total budget cuts: $385
author unknown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)