John McCain’s tax plan is far from perfect, but at its core is reducing taxes on businesses, small and large, to encourage job creation and kick-start the economy. The idea behind the plan is that a good job with a strong and growing business is a far better way to drive Americans’ incomes up than to distribute short-term government handouts, as the Obama plan does. Tax relief on individuals is certainly nice, but is really small potatoes compared with tax relief on businesses - in terms of both dollars and societal impact. To wit:
If my taxes are reduced to 1%, I'm going to have a lot more cash, right? Every paycheck will be larger, and that money has to go somewhere (as a fundamental law of physics). I could leave it in the bank, giving them money to lend (and earning interest for us both); I could invest it in the market, helping to spur job creation (and earning money for us both, if I pick the right companies in which to invest); or I could purchase products and services (thereby enriching other people - businesses and their employees). The trouble is that with the taxation on businesses so high, my purchasing power is pretty low - each of my dollars doesn't go very far, because taxes on businesses are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Just look at the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.
In my view it's better for the country to have a mix of the two - lower taxes on AMERICANS (no matter whether they be middle-class, upper-middle-class, etc.; we're all SUPPOSED to be equal under the law, not 'progressively' taxed at different rates as we earn more, anyway) and on businesses.
Modern economies build their wealth through investment and job creation, and Obama’s tax plan is aimed squarely at reducing investment and punishing wealth creation. Obama’s tax increases to pay for his new spending programs amount to billions of dollars of higher taxes on investments, businesses and individuals. This sends both businesses and investment dollars overseas, benefiting NO ONE in America - but absolutely fomenting more class envy and class warfare rhetoric.
The main people who suffer under such a plan are at the bottom of the economic ladder, because though they receive more government handouts, they will have fewer and fewer prospects for employment - to say nothing of entrepreneurship.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Share the Wealth
I laugh when I hear liberal politicians wax rhapsodic about taxes and the economy. They all believe that they can spend your money better than you can, and that's the basis of their entire 'tax the rich' and 'distribute the wealth' philosophy. Period. There's nothing in a Democratic economic platform regarding wealth or growth; there could not possibly be, when they want to double taxes on capital gains.
Sharing the wealth (better known as 'income redistribution') is straight out of the Marxist playbook, but all you will hear are platitudes about helping 'the needy' or 'the working poor'. You won't see the statistics showing how horribly awry the 'War on Poverty' has gone, or how raising taxes increases unemployment, and so on. Politicians don't get elected telling people how to do for themselves; they get elected promising to give the people things, whether money or privileges, to which they are not entitled and did not earn.
To me, there's something not quite right about taxing one American at a higher rate than another American, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. Seems to me that it's illegal - I seem to recall something in the Constitution about 'equal treatment under the law', but I guess that doesn't apply if you make more than $250k per year.
You'll likely hear a bunch of happy... ummmm... meadow muffins!... about how 'the rich' make use of so many tax loopholes and shelters that they 'don't pay their fair share'. To some extent, that's true - but 50% of Americans last year paid NO income taxes at all. And many of those received a nice check from the government!
Raising taxes on 'the rich' is simply a way for Democrats to BUY the votes of the less-privileged, who of course outnumber 'the rich' by a large margin. It all trickles down eventually, which is why higher taxes result in higher unemployment - making 'the rich' business owner pay more means he will pass that cost onto his consumers, and what he can't pass on directly will have to come off of the bottom line - expenses. #1 expense? Employees.
The economy will turn around on its own; the less government interference, the better.
Sharing the wealth (better known as 'income redistribution') is straight out of the Marxist playbook, but all you will hear are platitudes about helping 'the needy' or 'the working poor'. You won't see the statistics showing how horribly awry the 'War on Poverty' has gone, or how raising taxes increases unemployment, and so on. Politicians don't get elected telling people how to do for themselves; they get elected promising to give the people things, whether money or privileges, to which they are not entitled and did not earn.
To me, there's something not quite right about taxing one American at a higher rate than another American, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. Seems to me that it's illegal - I seem to recall something in the Constitution about 'equal treatment under the law', but I guess that doesn't apply if you make more than $250k per year.
You'll likely hear a bunch of happy... ummmm... meadow muffins!... about how 'the rich' make use of so many tax loopholes and shelters that they 'don't pay their fair share'. To some extent, that's true - but 50% of Americans last year paid NO income taxes at all. And many of those received a nice check from the government!
Raising taxes on 'the rich' is simply a way for Democrats to BUY the votes of the less-privileged, who of course outnumber 'the rich' by a large margin. It all trickles down eventually, which is why higher taxes result in higher unemployment - making 'the rich' business owner pay more means he will pass that cost onto his consumers, and what he can't pass on directly will have to come off of the bottom line - expenses. #1 expense? Employees.
The economy will turn around on its own; the less government interference, the better.
What is Political Correctness?
Political correctness... To shut down discussion and dissent, and to stifle debate, without having to actually discuss the points made, or the merits thereof.
To attempt to point out the odious nature of political correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech: These are the community's safeguards against the imposition of tyranny. Indeed, their absence is tyranny. The declared rationale of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended, by compelling everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset: Homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly - by way of a few examples.
This reveals not only its absurdity but also its inspiration: The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation; thus, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject(s) have become revered by the new generation. Political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parent's values, and hence the reason political correctness is so often used by the political Left in America - they are the nation's children.
A democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts, and the freest possible discussion of them. Crying 'racism' when none is either leveled or implied merely takes the focus from the issue at hand, and re-directs it at the speaker.
Political correctness is narrowing the range of acceptable opinions, down to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion - and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the the consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical motivation: It wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.
To attempt to point out the odious nature of political correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech: These are the community's safeguards against the imposition of tyranny. Indeed, their absence is tyranny. The declared rationale of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended, by compelling everyone to avoid using words or behavior that may upset: Homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly - by way of a few examples.
This reveals not only its absurdity but also its inspiration: The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation; thus, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject(s) have become revered by the new generation. Political correctness is merely the resentment of spoiled children directed against their parent's values, and hence the reason political correctness is so often used by the political Left in America - they are the nation's children.
A democracy depends on the widest possible dissemination of facts, and the freest possible discussion of them. Crying 'racism' when none is either leveled or implied merely takes the focus from the issue at hand, and re-directs it at the speaker.
Political correctness is narrowing the range of acceptable opinions, down to those held by a small group that enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing group by suppressing any contrary opinion - and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing group may be afraid of the the consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It generally has a practical motivation: It wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.
Sanctuary Cities
Up until last June, San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department had been transporting illegal alien juvenile drug dealers to their home countries to avoid their being arrested and deported by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
Isn't that called "hindering prosecution"? I'm no lawyer, but heck, I believe that's against the law. Isn't it? OK, that one doesn't 'exactly' fit? How about "harboring fugitives"?
I would not discontinue ALL federal funding to these so-called Sanctuary Cities, but most. I don't want to cut off the nose to spite the face. I want to punish people guilty of crimes, and NOT punish people who have done nothing wrong. The system whereby the federal government takes money from states to then return to states is, in itself, stupid and flawed; but until such time as that idiotic process ends, I will not advocate punishing innocent Americans, through action or inaction, by withholding funds for things like disaster relief.
I would, however, gladly arrest the mayors of such Sanctuary cities as San Francisco, CA and New Haven, CT among others. Sorry, guys, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws you'll follow and which ones you won't -- no more than the rest of America does.
For those who are unaware of this idiotic practice on the part of the federal government: This is why many of us long for a return to the rule of the Constitution as final arbiter of federal power. There's a really interesting bill in Oklahoma, proposed by House Rep. Charles Key (Joint House Resolution 1089) which reasserts Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution’s own language, is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.” The bill states:
“The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Oklahoma became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma’s tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws. Oklahoma’s immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”
The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants... it further mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work-eligibility of both employees and independent contractors.
On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the aforementioned mandates, which were schedule to go into force on July.
“We’ve just had a federal judge say that our immigration law’s employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory,” said Key in response. “That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn’t have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."
Pretty weird, eh?
Isn't that called "hindering prosecution"? I'm no lawyer, but heck, I believe that's against the law. Isn't it? OK, that one doesn't 'exactly' fit? How about "harboring fugitives"?
I would not discontinue ALL federal funding to these so-called Sanctuary Cities, but most. I don't want to cut off the nose to spite the face. I want to punish people guilty of crimes, and NOT punish people who have done nothing wrong. The system whereby the federal government takes money from states to then return to states is, in itself, stupid and flawed; but until such time as that idiotic process ends, I will not advocate punishing innocent Americans, through action or inaction, by withholding funds for things like disaster relief.
I would, however, gladly arrest the mayors of such Sanctuary cities as San Francisco, CA and New Haven, CT among others. Sorry, guys, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws you'll follow and which ones you won't -- no more than the rest of America does.
For those who are unaware of this idiotic practice on the part of the federal government: This is why many of us long for a return to the rule of the Constitution as final arbiter of federal power. There's a really interesting bill in Oklahoma, proposed by House Rep. Charles Key (Joint House Resolution 1089) which reasserts Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution’s own language, is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.” The bill states:
“The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Oklahoma became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma’s tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws. Oklahoma’s immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”
The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants... it further mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work-eligibility of both employees and independent contractors.
On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the aforementioned mandates, which were schedule to go into force on July.
“We’ve just had a federal judge say that our immigration law’s employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory,” said Key in response. “That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn’t have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."
Pretty weird, eh?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The American Idea of Liberty
I was asked once:
"How and why did American ideas on liberty change over time?"
In my opinion the decline of liberty - marked by the rise in the power of the federal government - began with the Civil War. Lincoln's power grab for the federal government still haunts us today, as his successors in the White House have expanded the power of the federal government to a degree never imagined by the founders.
It seems that each generation finds new ways to expand the power of government, which exist in inverse proportion to the 'amount' of liberty afforded the citizenry. What was created as a Union of sovereign states loosely connected by a small federal 'manager' has been flipped inside-out.
To expound upon my initial point:
On May 27, 1861, the army of the Union -- a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 -- invaded the State of Virginia, which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.
The historical result of the effort begun that day is well-known and indisputable: After four years of warfare which killed 620,000 people, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union... despite the fact that, because such secession was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it was by default LEGAL.
The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us several firsts: Federal conscription law, progressive income tax, enormous standing army... along with higher tariffs.
James McPherson writes: "This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . . created the blueprint for modern America."
In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.
"How and why did American ideas on liberty change over time?"
In my opinion the decline of liberty - marked by the rise in the power of the federal government - began with the Civil War. Lincoln's power grab for the federal government still haunts us today, as his successors in the White House have expanded the power of the federal government to a degree never imagined by the founders.
It seems that each generation finds new ways to expand the power of government, which exist in inverse proportion to the 'amount' of liberty afforded the citizenry. What was created as a Union of sovereign states loosely connected by a small federal 'manager' has been flipped inside-out.
To expound upon my initial point:
On May 27, 1861, the army of the Union -- a nation formed by consecutive secessions, first from Great Britain in 1776, and then from itself in 1788 -- invaded the State of Virginia, which had recently seceded from the Union, in an effort to negate that secession by violent force.
The historical result of the effort begun that day is well-known and indisputable: After four years of warfare which killed 620,000 people, the United States negated the secession of the Confederate States of America, and forcibly re-enrolled them into the Union... despite the fact that, because such secession was not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, it was by default LEGAL.
The Civil War caused and allowed a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the federal government. It gave us several firsts: Federal conscription law, progressive income tax, enormous standing army... along with higher tariffs.
James McPherson writes: "This astonishing blitz of laws . . . did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal. This Civil War Legislation . . . created the blueprint for modern America."
In the context of a legal analysis of state secession, it was the Union's invasion of Virginia that is significant, and not the Confederacy's firing on Fort Sumter a month earlier. The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter to expel what it believed were trespassers on South Carolina soil and territorial waters. By no means can the seizure of the fort be construed as a threat to the security of the states remaining in the Union, the closest of which was 500 miles away. If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union's initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.
Prayer and School and Morality
It seems to me that prayer (and religion) within the fabric of American society produced the most powerful nation on Earth. Only in the last three decades, since the rise of the drugs/free-love movement, has this come into question -- and I defy anyone to tell me that this nation's moral fiber is stronger for it.
For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television.
For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).
By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and very successfully so.
Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time.
Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.
Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs.
In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious: Their religion provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100%, no, but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics. And I believe we saw that in the last administration.
So why not allow prayer in school?? Why is it so offensive? Whom is it hurting? What's wrong with a 'moment of silence' if you disagree with the word 'prayer'?
Why does a vocal minority get to decide some of the most basic, important questions facing America and her future?
For nearly two centuries people would recoil in utter shock if a woman uttered profanity; now we see it on prime-time television.
For nearly two centuries, it was understood that this country was founded upon those tenets introduced by religion, while never endorsing any religion above any other (though slight deference was always -- and still is -- paid to Christian denominations; hence our federal holiday of Christmas, for example).
By and large, it was believed for centuries that children who were taught religion in some form would grow up to be moral adults. We ALL know of the exceptions to this rule, but up until the 1960s this country was predicated on that very idea, and very successfully so.
Read quotes from almost any of the Founding Fathers, from almost any president, up until that time (and a very few after, like Reagan); read the school texts, the newspaper articles. It was a simpler time, a happier time, and a far more moral time.
Our coins reflect a belief in the Almighty; our government bodies always began sessions with a prayer; the Ten Commandments used to be taught to every schoolchild, and posted in every courtroom.
Now, all of that said: Religion has no place in government. But religion does provide the moral basis for determining one's actions. If you hear someone is a Christian, for example, you can be reasonably sure (whether you admit it or not) that the person is honest and trustworthy, even if you don't share their beliefs.
In my view, that's why so many voters want someone with a long tradition of being religious: Their religion provides a roadmap for determining their future actions. Not 100%, no, but when a person has been raised without religion, you sense they are also without conviction... without morals, principles, or ethics. And I believe we saw that in the last administration.
So why not allow prayer in school?? Why is it so offensive? Whom is it hurting? What's wrong with a 'moment of silence' if you disagree with the word 'prayer'?
Why does a vocal minority get to decide some of the most basic, important questions facing America and her future?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Top Strategic Goals for the Government
In no particular order, these are the top goals to which I think the US government should aspire:
1) Protect the citizenry from attacks by other nation-states and terrorists.
2) Promote free trade by removing tariffs.
3) Secure the borders by:
3a) Offering a general amnesty to anyone here illegally who has not otherwise committed a crime during their stay - the rest get deported;
3b) Declaring a 10-year closed-border policy, to be reviewed and adjusted as-needed, and not inclusive of those refugees suffering religious or ethnic persectution in their home country.
4) Lower ALL taxes (this really ought to read "Simplify the system of taxation by implementing a flat tax", but that's a conversation for another time).
5) Invest in energy independence by:
5a) Allowing oil companies to drill for oil in the ANWR and off the coasts;
5b) Promoting the construction of new oil refineries by offering tax breaks to ANY company who will build and maintain a refinery;
5c) Offering tax rebates for every person and company who purchases hybrid vehicles;
5d) Removing the ethanol requirements from all fuels (as this stupid requirement increases the cost of gasoline, for example, by ensuring that the gasoline with ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines);
5e) Building nuclear power plants.
6) Rescind all federal laws related to narcotics, and:
6a) Immediately pardon and release from prison all inmates serving sentences ONLY for non-violent drug-related offenses - after each inmate first devotes one-half of their remaining sentence on public works projects (to be determined by each state based on their needs), such as: Repairing roads and bridges, cleaning up streets, and so on.
7) Impose term limits on every elected federal office of no more than TWO terms for every elected official serving in every elected office (if it's good enough for the office of the President, it's good enough for a Senator and Representative - this is America, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.. see the 22nd Amendment).
8) Dissolve federal bureaucracies such as the Department of Education (since the 1950s - when the federal government got involved - the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up), Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, and others.. unless it can be pointed out in the Constitution, it ought to be left to the States.
1) Protect the citizenry from attacks by other nation-states and terrorists.
2) Promote free trade by removing tariffs.
3) Secure the borders by:
3a) Offering a general amnesty to anyone here illegally who has not otherwise committed a crime during their stay - the rest get deported;
3b) Declaring a 10-year closed-border policy, to be reviewed and adjusted as-needed, and not inclusive of those refugees suffering religious or ethnic persectution in their home country.
4) Lower ALL taxes (this really ought to read "Simplify the system of taxation by implementing a flat tax", but that's a conversation for another time).
5) Invest in energy independence by:
5a) Allowing oil companies to drill for oil in the ANWR and off the coasts;
5b) Promoting the construction of new oil refineries by offering tax breaks to ANY company who will build and maintain a refinery;
5c) Offering tax rebates for every person and company who purchases hybrid vehicles;
5d) Removing the ethanol requirements from all fuels (as this stupid requirement increases the cost of gasoline, for example, by ensuring that the gasoline with ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines);
5e) Building nuclear power plants.
6) Rescind all federal laws related to narcotics, and:
6a) Immediately pardon and release from prison all inmates serving sentences ONLY for non-violent drug-related offenses - after each inmate first devotes one-half of their remaining sentence on public works projects (to be determined by each state based on their needs), such as: Repairing roads and bridges, cleaning up streets, and so on.
7) Impose term limits on every elected federal office of no more than TWO terms for every elected official serving in every elected office (if it's good enough for the office of the President, it's good enough for a Senator and Representative - this is America, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.. see the 22nd Amendment).
8) Dissolve federal bureaucracies such as the Department of Education (since the 1950s - when the federal government got involved - the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up), Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, and others.. unless it can be pointed out in the Constitution, it ought to be left to the States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe Today!
Posts
All Comments