Third Party & Independents Archives

The 14th Amendment: Repeal and Replace


A discussion

The southern states were under marshal law at the time the 14th and 15 amendments were proposed and ratified. The Reconstruction Acts, passed over Johnson's veto, prohibited representation of the southern states. The 14th was authored specifically to address former slaves. It was ratified by the southern states under duress.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14

The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).

Some red meat: The political group supporting the Reconstruction Act was called "Radical Republicans".

The 14th amendment actually consists of 5 sections. Only section one addresses citizenship specifically.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights


1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Question: Does Section 2 grant the congress the ability to deny the representation of the Southern States in congress? Is that it's purpose?

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3 is clearly written to forbid participants in the rebellion to hold public office.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Again, section 4 deals only with items specific to the Civil War.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

I consider this section absolutely scary for it's vagueness.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Why repeal the 14th amendment?

Section 4 insures the validity of the debt incurred as a result of the rebellion. It also denies the validity of debt incurred in support of the rebellion. Unless the section is to be used in the case of future rebellions the text is no longer needed. Should this section remain in our constitution to be used as a method of validating and funding future suppression?

Section 3 was written specifically to address the past rebellion. Section 3 is also no longer needed. No one alive during the rebellion would be available to currently hold office.

Section 2 should be retained and considered a separate amendment. This section can be used to address the issue of self proclaimed sanctuary states. The entire purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to provide a framework for every state to share. Sanctuary state proclamations are a direct violation of that framework and should not be represented in our nation's congress. If they want to abuse that framework, they should not be able to decide how we spend our money. If they choose to violate established laws they have no business writing them.

This leaves us with section 1, the citizenship clause. For the same reason section 3 is no longer needed, so goes section 1. There are no longer any former slaves alive. Their children are naturally born in the state the former slave lived in. They are citizens of that state and therefore a citizen of the united states. The repeal of section 1 will not effect the purpose because the purpose is moot.

The repeal of the 14th amendment would lead to solutions to many of our problems with immigration. Returning the responsibility of controlling the flow of immigration to the states, and allowing the state to determine citizenship would eliminate the friction being caused by the federal administration of immigration and naturalization. It would also return border enforcement and security as the prominent component used to control immigration. A lack of an established residence in any state would forbid birthright citizenship of any foreign child born on U.S. territory.

A repeal of the 14th amendment would allow other opportunities to rise. Corporate financing of elections would fall away as an issue. Corporations would no longer have a claim to person hood under the constitution if the 14th amendment was repealed.

Words of my father come to mind. He would repeatedly say, "When are going to get off your ass and do something!". He said it a lot. If he were president he would be tweeting it right now to the nation. Talking about any issue, it gets stymied by saying "the 14th amendment..." Well? If we can't get off our ass and repeal it, at least it's worth a respectful discussion, right?

Posted by Weary_Willie at December 15, 2019 12:59 PM
Comments
Comment #451703

Rather than repeal, the 14th Amendment needs some clarity, and some updates.
The 19th Amendment (women’s right to vote; a right that Democrats opposed) takes precedence over the mention of “males” in the previous 14th Amendment.
SECTION#1 of the 14th Amendment mentions “jurisdiction”, and that can easily be argued to mean that non-citizens are not subject to U.S. “jurisdiction”, unless they have been naturalized (and approved by the U.S.), or their parent is a U.S. citizen.
IF a non-citizen women of Egypt has a baby in Egypt, that doesn’t automatically make the baby an Egyption citizen.
Unfortunately, despite the meaning of “jurisdiction”, Democrats and Republicans have assumed anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.

By the way, Demorats opposed womens’ right to vote, and Democrats also:

The Democrats want massive illegal immigration for one reason (i.e. for votes, based on the decennial census, which does not verify citizenship), and they don’t care about the monetary and human cost, and 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens.

The federal government has failed miserably to enforce immigration laws, and since Democrats have been despicably pandering to illegal immigrants for decades (with sanctuary states, drivers’ licenses, lots of free stuff, and promises of more free stuff, etc.), most immigrants vote Democrat (essentially, an example of bribery, for which, perhaps, all Democrats should be impeached, eh?).

Democrats compassion for illegal immigrants is fake, and the proof of Democrats’ fake compassion for illegal immigrants is exemplified by Obama and Democrats who did nothing when they had a filibuster-proof congress in year 2009 (i.e. Obama and Democrats did nothing to pass a pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamer” illegal immigrants (who had been brought to the U.S. by parents when they were young)).

Republicans and Independents are allowing their own demise by allowing Democrats to continue their despicable scheme, who will do almost anything for more votes, money, power, and control (as demostrated by the Democrats’ deeds over the last 155+ years).

Posted by: d.a.n at December 16, 2019 10:32 AM
Comment #451709

The word “jurisdiction” is used twice in section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The word “power” can be substituted in the first clause of Section 1 and it will still retain it’s meaning.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction Power thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The word “territory” can replace the word in the last sentence.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction territory the equal protection of the laws.


The word “jurisdiction” has 2 separate meanings.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
definition

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

Both meanings are used in Section 1.
Could this be where the ambiguity comes from?

I see it as meaning the difference between “Citizen” and “person”. A citizen can vote, a person cannot. Therefore, the citizen has the power as defined in the first case. A person not born on U.S. Territory cannot vote, therefore cannot have jurisdiction.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born.
Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no national birthright rule applicable within the States prior to the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution. The reason for this is because the authority remained with each State to make rules that distinguished alien from citizen.

Article IV, Sec. II uses the word “citizen”

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It uses the word “person” to include aliens who have committed crimes and fled to other states. There is a clear distinction between the two.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 16, 2019 3:03 PM
Comment #451710

I don’t think the intention of the Constitution and laws were ever to award citizenship to those born in the U.S. by illegal immigrants.

I don’t see the interpretation of “jurisdiction” or “person” to mean anchor babies have automatic citizenship. There are always those (especially Democrats) that attempt to twist the meaning of the words of laws, while trying to ignore the original intent of the law (i.e. the spirit of the law).

Democrats will argue otherwise, and Republicans just sit there like fools (because they wanted the cheap labor).
However, Democrats are increasing their electoral votes via massive illegal immigration.
Huge numbers of people today now think socialism is a good thing, and they are falling for all of the promises of all sorts of free stuff by Democrats, open-borders, and more sanctuary cities and states.
That’s the sort of people the Democrat party needs, who want socialism (and/or communism), who want government to help them disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equatlity, and who want the government to take care of them from cradle-to-grave.

70% of all births at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, TX are by illegal immigrants.
297,000 anchor babies (as of JUN-2019) are born in the U.S. each year are by non-citizens (about 20% of all births in the U.S.A.).
The 297,000 births per year by illegal immigrants is larger than the total number of births in all but two state (CA, TX), and larger than the total number of births in 16 states plus the District of Columbia, combined.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) stated that the estimated 28,000 births to illegal immigrants in just the Los Angeles metro area alone is larger than the total number of births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

Again, if Independents and Republicans allow it, by allowing Democrats to continue their despicable scheme, who will do almost anything for more votes, money, power, and control (as demostrated by the Democrats’ deeds over the last 155+ years), then they all have what they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 16, 2019 3:22 PM
Comment #451711

We should accumulate issues that have been thwarted by the mere mention of the 14th amendment.

1. Corporate Person Hood
2. Granting of Birthright Citizenship to non-citizens
3. Social Security
4. Welfare subsidies
5.

Take each issue and examine it without 14th amendment considerations. What would it be like if the 14th amendment didn’t exist?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 16, 2019 3:58 PM
Comment #451724

I don’t see a problem with what appears to be the original intent of the sections of the 14th Amendment.
The problems occur with the interpretation, and ambiguity with regard to citizenship, which needs clarification, in order to prevent further abuses by those with nefarious motives.
Supreme Court rulings could settle those issues.
Obviously, most people seem to believe being born here is sufficient for receiving U.S. citizenship.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 17, 2019 8:10 AM
Comment #451725

The original intent was to deal with the aftermath of the Civil War. I don’t see any need for sections 3,4,5 at all. They relate to the war, the people serving in the war, and the debt accumulated by the war. It really has nothing to do with citizenship of people born here in the modern day. I believe it should be repealed and the citizenship question should be returned to the states as was the true original intent.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 17, 2019 9:20 AM
Comment #451726

Apparently, many states have already decided that illegal immigration is OK, including birthright citizenship.
Caifornia, Oregon, Washington state, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, and many other states have already become sanctuary states, but the true motive behind it (i.e. the Democrats’ motive) is despicable.

Democrats are incentivizing illegal immigration, promising all sorts of free stuff, including free stuff for illegal immigrants.
Repeal of the 14th Amendment isn’t going to fix the problem of illegal immigration, and the Supreme Court could potentially resolve some of the ambiguities.

Part of the problem is that 40 of the 50 U.S. states (i.e. 80% of the states) don’t understand the severity of the problem:

  • (1) 97.4% of all illegal immigrants reside in only 10 states (CA,TX,FL,NY,IL,NJ,GA,NC,AZ,VA); mostly border states and sanctuary states;
  • (2) 40% of illegal immigrants reside in only 2 states (CA,TX);
  • (3) FEDERAL ARRESTS (DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics):
    • YEAR: __ NON-CITIZENS __ U.S. CITIZENS:
    • 1998: _______ 37% ____________ 63%
    • 2018: _______ 64% ___________ 36%
  • (4) crime rates by illegal immigrants in many of those 10 states are much higher (especially CA and NY); there are 2,000 homicides per year by non-citizens (a higher rate than that of U.S. citizens, and increasing each year);
  • (5) 70% of all births at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, TX are by illegal immigrants;
  • (6) 297,000 anchor babies (as of JUN-2019) are born in the U.S. each year are by non-citizens (about 20% of all births in the U.S.A.). The 297,000 births per year by illegal immigrants is larger than the total number of births in all but two state (CA, TX), and larger than the total number of births in 16 states plus the District of Columbia, combined. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) stated that the estimated 28,000 births to illegal immigrants in just the Los Angeles metro area alone is larger than the total number of births in 14 states and the District of Columbia;
  • (7) Illegal immigrants receive more welfare (per capita) than U.S. citizens; the total cost is massive (estimated to be well over $275 Billion per year, which does not include the cost of crime by criminal non-citizens;
  • (8) 81% of all persons convicted of voter fraud ([1979-2018]) are Democrats, and tens of thousands illegal immigrants are voting in our elections;
  • (9) Democrats incentivize illegal immigration, and Democrats not only don’t care about the increased crime rates and tens of thousands of victims of crime per year by criminal non-citizens, the Democrats and the majority of the left arm of the Democrat party (i.e. the —MAIN STREAM MEDIA—>FAKE NEWS) continuously lie about it (although, those lies are becoming fewer and fewer). But such lies and deeds are nothing new for Democrats, who have a long history of despicable deeds for the last 155+ years.
Again, IF enough Independent and Republican voters dont’ care enough to resolve the growing problem, and allow Democrats to continue their despicable scheme to acquire more votes, money, power, and control, then they all have what they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 17, 2019 10:08 AM
Comment #451744

Illegal immigration wouldn’t be a problem if the federal government wasn’t supporting it. If each state had to be responsible for the welfare of it’s own population, their population as a whole, they wouldn’t have the magnets that are being taken advantage of. They could have the magnets if they paid the bills. That’s up to them, but I doubt they would pay for the excesses that are currently being funded by the fed.

If you were to repeal one amendment, what would it be?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 17, 2019 8:07 PM
Comment #451745

Do you realize, the first 10 amendments were put in place to protect the citizen. The following amendments were mostly granting permission to the federal government. Quite a few of them have nothing to do with the citizen.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 17, 2019 8:10 PM
Comment #451768

Not sure about “most” after the 10th …

    Amendments:
  • 01st Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition;
  • 02nd Amendment: Right to Keep, Bear Arms;
  • 03rd Amendment: Lodging Troops in Private Homes;
  • 04th Amendment: Search, Seizures, Proper Warrants;
  • 05th Amendment: Criminal Proceedings; Due Process; Eminent Domain; Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self incrimination;
  • 06th Amendment: Criminal Proceedings; Must inform defendant of charge/s; Right to Attorney; Right to fair impartial jury;
  • 07th Amendment: Jury Trials in Civil Cases;
  • 08th Amendment: Bail; Cruel, Unusual Punishment;
  • 09th Amendment: Unenumerated Rights;
  • 10th Amendment: Powers Reserved to the States;
  • 11th Amendment: Suits Against States;
  • 12th Amendment: Election of President and VIce President; electoral votes;
  • 13th Amendment: Slavery and Involuntary Servitude Prohibited;
  • 14th Amendment: Rights of Citizens; citizenship;
  • 15th Amendment: Right to Vote regardless of Race, Color, Servitude;
  • 16th Amendment: Income Tax;
  • 17th Amendment: Popular Election of Senators;
  • 18th Amendment: Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors;
  • 19th Amendment: Equal Suffrage—-Sex; Right of Women to Vote;
  • 20th Amendment: Commencement of Terms; Sessions of Congress; Death or Disqualification of President-Elect;
  • 21st Amendment: Repeal of 18th Amendment;
  • 22nd Amendment: Presidental Tenure; No President may serve more than 2 elected terms;
  • 23rd Amendment: Inclusion of DIstrict of Columbia in Presidential Election System;
  • 24th Amendment: Right to Vote in Federal Elections regardless of tax delinquincy;
  • 25th Amendment: Presidential Succession; Vice Presidential Vacancy; Presidential Inability;
  • 26th Amendment: Right to Vote at age 18 or older;
  • 27th Amendment: Congressional Pay; Congress’s power to fix the salaries of its members
I don’t care to repeal any of these, but I’d like to see an Article V Convention for:
  • (a) clarification or modification of the 14th amendment, and better enforcement of existing laws, including illegal immigration laws;
  • (b) and a few new amendments for balanced budget, congressional term limits, and taxation limits on percentages and elimination of regressive taxes (e.g. caps on income subject to taxes; why is labor income subject to Social Security tax and Medicare tax, but some other types of income are not? why are federal income tax rates higher for labor income than some other types of income?);

Posted by: d.a.n at December 18, 2019 10:05 AM
Comment #451776

Well, now we’re getting somewhere. This post was entirely about the 14th amendment. What clarifications or modifications need to be made, in your opinion?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 18, 2019 6:42 PM
Comment #451777

We already have term limits. We just don’t utilize them. Let me ask you this.

If you had a speaker of the house who consistently achieved no votes on every spending bill that isn’t authorized by the U.S. Constitution, would you surrender that kind of success to an arbitrary term limit?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 18, 2019 6:46 PM
Comment #451778

I often wonder about the necessity and motives behind the 20th amendment. It mandates congress meet every year. Why? It’s like mandating action by government regardless of a need.

That doesn’t benefit the people who pay the taxes. It benefits the congress and they receive compensation!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 18, 2019 7:16 PM
Comment #451779

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-huge-supreme-court-cases-about-the-14th-amendment/

Constitution Daily looks at 10 historic Supreme Court cases about due process and equal protection under the law.
Posted by: Weary Willie at December 18, 2019 7:39 PM
Comment #451780

Hey, wait! I thought the 14th amendment was about citizenship!!

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 18, 2019 7:39 PM
Comment #451784

Here’s the problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
This needs to be revisited, and clarified, or modified.
What was the real original intent of section 1 of the 14th amendment, and what was the purpose of the use of the word “Jurisdiction” ?
The wording of section 1 of the 14th Amendment is open to abuse.
And it is being abused on a massive scale.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 18, 2019 10:26 PM
Comment #451818

The Democrats just dug their election hole another foot deeper with this impeachment nonsense. The loonies wagging the DNC dog shouted the loudest and whatever sanity remained in the party disappeared.

It has become obvious that the Dems have given up all hope of winning the White House come November; and they don’t seem to care about retaining leadership in the House.

Obama, and a few other wiser heads in the Party have written off the next election in hopes that a resounding defeat at the polls will snatch power away from the Socialist crowd in their party.

Sanity can only return to the Dem Party when they rid themselves of the loonies presently holding office.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2019 5:28 PM
Comment #451820

I agree about section 1. The new born in under the responsibility of the parent. If the parent is foreign born, then so must be the child.

Royal Flush, they didn’t get rid of their loonies in the 60’s. In fact, they went on to be the Dem Party. Why wouldn’t their present loonies control the future party?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 19, 2019 8:16 PM
Comment #451823

Ambiguity in Section 1 of the 14th amendment has allowed abuses by Democrats and similar socialist and corrupt ilk to incentivize massive illegal immigration, and the reason is despicable.

The Socialist philosophy and values are like a cancer, and with the help of 90% of the —MAIN STREAM MEDIA—>FAKE NEWS, they will do anything to acquire power and control, even if it risks destroying the nation.
The only consolation about a socialist take-over is that it is doomed to fail eventually (as it did in Venezuala, the USSR, Greece, East Germany, China, Cambodia, Cuba, Ethiopia, N. Korea, Poland, Romania, etc., etc., etc.). Other countries have tried smaller doses of Socialism, until it started to fail, and they changed course (e.g. Israel, UK, India).

Socialism is doomed to fail because:

  • it depends not upon the will of the people, but on the dictatorship to remain in power.
  • Socialism has never succeeded anywhere, and nations with the highest degrees of socialism were the fastest to fail. After WWII, Israel, UK, and India adopted socialist practices, but abandoned much of it due to deterioration due to socialism, and those countries returned to free market practices.
  • socialism denies the existence of an essential fact of life, and fails miserably to account for it: Human Nature; Socialism is attractive to selfish and lazy people (the parasites), and the people that want to control everything (the master parasites).
  • Socialists try to disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equality. Socialism fails to recognize the importance of this formula.
  • Socialists fail to understand that trying to make the government responsible for everything leads to a government that is wasteful, corrupt, inefficient, and accountable for almost everything.
  • Socialists are lured to Socialsim because they think they are going to get free stuff promised to them by the master parasites. Socialists not only want government to take care of them from cradle-to-grave, but they feel they are entitled to it.
  • Socialists believe the myth that we can all somehow exist at the expense of everyone else.
  • Socialists are dangerous, and mob-like, when they don’t get their own way. Socialists don’t have a clue about the U.S. Constitution, nor the simple philosophy of live-and-let-live. That’s because Socialists want to control you, and use Socialism for legal plunder, to pervert the legal system to do the very things that the laws were originally intended to prohibit.
Today, many Democrats are socialists, and some proudly admit it. Many Democrats are appealing to the worst traits of human nature, and trying to acquire more electoral votes via massive illegal immigration with promises of free stuff. Many Democrats are doing these despicable things for decades to acquire more electoral votes, power, and control, not to mention these despicable deeds over the last 155+ years.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 20, 2019 12:10 AM
Comment #451837

Yes, they are socialists. But they’re only able to afford socialism because the 16th and 17th amendments were passed in the blink of an eye, along with the bank to hold all that new found money. Today, even our emails, photos, private e-conversations are owned by someone else. We have no intellectual property rights on the internet.

The people were asleep at the switch in 1913, as they are today. They were enjoying prosperity and luxury without a care in the world, just as they are today. They didn’t care about the federal government because it didn’t effect them. Their politics were truly local, along with their commerce, spending, and taxes.

That’s not the case today. Most people don’t care about the federal government while at the same time conceding to it totally. They’re fine with their senator and representative, and the current lightning rod president spending 25% of their money for them. Ironically, it’s because their garbage is picked up and their electricity stays on and the water is clean and they’re paying for that as well! It’s strangely funny how that works, isn’t it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 20, 2019 2:11 PM
Comment #451840

Yes, the voters are culpable too.
Only about 62% bothered to vote in 2016 (higher than 50% in year 2000).
But, the voters have their limits, and when the situation in the U.S.A. starts looking more like Venezuela, Greece, and other failed socialist countries, then there will be societal chaos, which could even lead to civil war (as has already occurred once when Democrats started the U.S. Civil War in order to preserve slavery).

One of the worst dangers facing the U.S.A. today is the Democrats’ despicable goal over decades to transform the nation into a socialist nation by luring as many socialists as possible to the U.S.A. via illegal immigration, with promises of free stuff.
Democrats are also trying to buy votes with promises of all sorts of free stuff.

Also, Republicans and Independents that understand the dangers of socialism and communism need to do a better job of educating younger citizens. Socialists want free stuff, and they habitually try to disguise their envy and jealousy as demands for equality, and to demand the free stuff that they think they are entitled to. What they don’t understand is that those systems always deteriorate and eventually fail. Unfortunately, too many voters are far too easily bribed with promises of free stuff.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 20, 2019 3:13 PM
Comment #451843

How can something like The Great Society be understood by people who are dependent on it? Mothers who have another child to get a raise, because that’s how her mother got her stuff. How do you tell them it’s wrong? How do you persuade them to change their perspective? How do you say they can do better?

I’d say with education, but the middle class has bought into the idea that education is free and controlled by those we vote for. They won’t even consider alternatives. They’ve passed laws to make it illegal to not educate your child. How do you use education to change minds when education hamstrings them with the status quo? How do you utilize alternatives when alternatives must be approved and unapproved alternatives are punished by law? For some reason we still call this a free country.

I think government calls it a free country because the entrenched government is free to write the laws that dictate their demands onto us.


When did education become a problem? When the federal government forced states to comply with their standards.

When did immigration become a problem? When the federal government forced states to comply with their standards.

When did energy become a problem? When the federal government forced states to comply with their standards.

When did the environment become a problem? When the federal government forced states to comply with their standards.

When did states begin to allow the federal government to push them around? 1913.

Why? Because in 1868 the federal government determined the citizen was a citizen of the United States and only then a citizen of the various states. That is why the supreme court has become so powerful. It has allowed citizens of one state to dictate to citizens in every other state. In no way would the founding fathers grant one person the “right” to remove the bible in every school in the union. That never would have happened without the 14th amendment.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 20, 2019 4:09 PM
Comment #451844

Pessimism seems to reign today on WB. I remain positive and optimistic.

We have millions fewer people on welfare today versus only a few years ago. We have millions more people on a payroll today versus only a few years ago. We have hundreds of new conservative judges sitting on the federal bench today versus only a few years ago. The working middle class is getting bigger and more prosperous.

I will not deny that we have political problems…was there ever a time when we didn’t? Those floating gloom and doom have been around my entire life. Hardly any of it has come true.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2019 4:42 PM
Comment #451845

I didn’t mean to cast doom and gloom, just to inject an alternative.

The only lasting fact in your comment, Royal Flush, is that we have new conservative judges. The pendulum is swinging back and will be for a generation.

What frightens me is what our country does with prosperity. It adds government and subtracts freedoms.

A Hospital bill for childbirth in 1950 was less than 100 dollars. In 2016 dollars it came to $850! What’s happened since then? Is the Great Society the culprit? Look at the ACA debacle. Look at the same hospital bill for childbirth in 2019. What’s happened since 1950?

I’ll give you one guess.
Government intervention. The phrase we’re looking for is Government Intervention, sir. Government intervention.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 20, 2019 5:08 PM
Comment #451846

I thought about this question for five minutes.

What freedoms did I have sixty years ago that I don’t have today?

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock…hmmm; this is pitiful, I can’t think of any. Someone; please help me.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2019 5:39 PM
Comment #451847

Weary, I agree about the incompetence, bloat, waste, resulting excessive costs, and some degrees of oppression by the state and federal governments (e.g. spying on citizens; 2nd amendment infringements; unfair taxation; a gazillion different taxes; bankrupt and mismanaged social programs such as $70 Billion per year in Medicare fraud; continual importation of cheap labor via insufficient enforcement of existing immigration laws and border security, and refusal to prosecute illegal employers; weaponization of the laws and legal systems to do the things the laws were originally supposed to prohibit; etc., etc., etc.).

However, having visited dozens of other countries, I can still say (at the moment) that I would NOT want to live in any of those other countries.

It’s disturbing that so many people today are embracing Socialism, because we know how that all ends. Some candidates running for POTUS are proposing that all private health insurance be banned, while also promising all sorts of free stuff. What the hell?
It’s disturbing that so many people are fooled by promises of free stuff, and so ignorant of the end result.

I once believed that the $23 Trillion national debt was the most serious thing facing the nation, but I now think it is the rise of socialism, which is due to massive illegal immigration, incentivized for decades by the Democrats’ pandering to illegal immigrants with promises of free stuff (essentially bribery, to acquire more votes, power, and control; look at what has happened to California, a state with the most electoral votes=55).

On the bright side, I don’t think any of the Democrats or similar ilk have a chance of winning the 3-NOV-2020 election for POTUS.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 20, 2019 5:56 PM
Comment #451848

I found it amusing when the Democrat presidential candidates all petitioned the DNC to change the debate stage rules which have resulted in no black candidates qualifying to be on stage.

To demand “political affirmative action” for office seekers reeks of the same stench that is destroying our institutions of higher learning and health care.

It sends a message that even political candidates with little public appeal, followers, or donors receive the same public face time as front-runners.

How silly!

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 20, 2019 6:28 PM
Comment #451850

Were you able to afford health insurance 60 years ago, Royal Flush?

You lost the freedom to afford medical care, Royal Flush. Affordable health care is gone. A simple procedure can bankrupt you without insurance. When my son was born in 1985 it cost me around $600. I paid for it with payments at no interest set up by the hospital.

I’ve paid auto insurance since it became mandatory. I lost the freedom to keep that money. Guess what? It’s been 3 decades I’ve been paying auto insurance and I’ve never used it. Never needed it. I’ve never had an accident. We’ve lost the freedom to be responsible.

We’ve lost the freedom to keep our property, Royal Flush. Look at the taxes we have now that we didn’t have 100 years ago. All that money sucked out of the economy and paid to people who’s only purpose is to document it’s theft. Such a waste. We’ve lost the freedom to be efficient and frugal.

Why? Why have we giving in to the illusion that if we allow the government to take our property it will keep us free from harm?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 20, 2019 7:50 PM
Comment #451863

It’s called “legal plunder”.

Regarding auto insurance, I think any driver should have financial responsibility to afford the cost of damages that they may cause due to an accident that is their fault. That is, driving has the relatively high probability to do harm to others. Financial responsibility is possible via insurance. But, perhaps good drivers should receive some rebates? Bad drivers should have higher insurance premiums or have their driver licenses revoked.
In Texas, there are millions of illegal immigrants driving around without any auto insurance, who also don’t have the ability to be financially responsible.

However, forcing U.S. citizens to pay for healthcare, housing, food stamps, welfare cash, education for illegal immigrants (many of which who don’t have auto insurance either) is unfair to U.S. citizens, and that does not even include the massive untold cost of tens of thousands of victims of crimes, and 2,000 homicides per year by criminal non-citizens, nor the cost of illegal immigrants voting in our elections.

Democrats have incentivized all of those abuses, Republicans incentivized illegal immigration for cheap labor, and voters have allowed it by repeatedly re-electing both. Trump is the only president in many decades that has tried harder to secure the borders, but even Trump’s administration is not prosecuting the illegal employers. IF illegal employers were prosecuted (as they should be under existing laws), then it would greatly reduce one of the magnets (aside from all of this free stuff for illegal immigrants, which should be eliminated too).

Sales taxes are regressive taxes, which always hit the people of lesser wealth and income hardest.

The income tax system, despite what some people think is progressive, is actually a regressive tax system, because labor income :

  • is taxed at 2 x 6.2% (i.e. 12.4%) for Social Security,
  • is also taxed at 2 x 1.45% (i.e. 2.9%) for Medicare (i.e. 15.3%= 6.2% + 2.9%),
  • and also taxed 10%-to-37% for income
  • _______________________________________
  • for a total of 25.3% to 52.3%
Income caps also make the taxes regressive, and regressive taxes:
  • serve to reduce the percentage of income paid to taxes by the more wealthy,
  • and increase the percentage of income paid to taxes by the less wealthy.
Also, capital gains income is not subject to Social Security or Medicare taxes.
Apparently, some types of income are superior to others (i.e. capital gains income is superior to labor/salary income).
This is how Mitt Romney can pay only 15% on $42 Million in 2012.
Yet, IF you make $80K per year, you paid 35.3% of your income for Social Security, Medicare, and federal income taxes.
IF you make $452,400K per year in capital gains, you paid 15.0% of your income to federal income taxes (i.e. 20.3% less).
Is that fair ?

Ordinary Income Tax Rates (Social Security cap in 2020=$137,700):

  • 2017 ____ 2019-to-2025___single____________married
  • 10% _____ 10%________ $0-$9,525 _________$0-$19,050
  • 15% _____ 12%________ $9,525-$38,700_____$19,050-$77,400
  • 25% _____ 22%________ $38,700-$82,500____$77,400-$165,000
  • 28% _____ 24%________ $82,500-$157,500___$165,000-$315,000
  • 33% _____ 32%________ $157,500-$200,000__$315,000-$400,000
  • 33%-35% _ 35%________ $200,000-$500,000__$400,000-$600,000
  • 39.6% ____ 37%________ $500,000+ _________$600,000+

Capital Gains Tax Rates (2019-to-2025) for single:
  • Ordinary______________Long-Term
  • Income_______________Capital Gains
  • Levels________________Tax Rate
  • $0-to-$38,600_________0.0%
  • $38,601-to-$425,800___15.0%
  • 425,801 or more_______20.00

Capital Gains Tax Rates (2019-to-2025) for married, filing separately:
  • Ordinary______________Long-Term
  • Income_______________Capital Gains
  • Levels________________Tax Rate
  • $0-to-$38,600_________0.0%
  • $38,601-to-$239,500___15.0%
  • 239,501 or more_______20.00%

Capital Gains Tax Rates (2019-to-2025) for married, filing jointly:
  • Ordinary______________Long-Term
  • Income_______________Capital Gains
  • Levels________________Tax Rate
  • $0-to-$77,200_________0.0%
  • $77,201-to-$479,000___15.0%
  • 479,001 or more_______20.00%

Capital Gains Tax Rates (2019-to-2025) for head-of-household:
  • Ordinary______________Long-Term
  • Income_______________Capital Gains
  • Levels________________Tax Rate
  • $0-to-$51,700_________0.0%
  • $51,701-to-$452,400___15.0%
  • 452,401 or more_______20.00%

Posted by: d.a.n at December 21, 2019 1:24 PM
Comment #451865

I think a progressive tax is unfair, but it’s unfair to wealthier earners. 10% of 100 is 10. 10% of 1000 is 100. The wealthier of the two pay 10 times the amount at the same percentage. Both pay 10%. That’s fair. Someone paying 15% and someone else paying 70% is unfair.

What is the saying? “All men are created equal”? Has it been changed? Is it now, “All men are created equal except when you make an arbitrary amount of money”?

It doesn’t matter how much the person paying 70% is making, it is still exceedingly unfair compared to the person paying 15%.

The problem with a progressive tax structure is spending. That’s what we should be focusing on. Spending.

The 16th amendment could also be written differently and still mean the same thing. It can be written to say:

The federal government can take from any citizen whatever it wants.

Because that is exactly what it has become. One way or another, if the federal government wants it, it will take it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 2:54 PM
Comment #451867

Weary, being able to afford something doesn’t translate into “freedom” in the context I was using.

“Freedom” to keep money or property is not lost because costs have increased.

Personal “wants and desires” are separate from the “freedom” and Liberty described in the constitution.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2019 3:21 PM
Comment #451870

Government spending versus government taxation has been discussed for ages. Do we spend according to our revenue; or increase revenue to afford our spending.

Who decides what spending is necessary and what spending is arbitrary? Obviously, the answer is the legislators we send to congress and the president we send to the White House.

The most important, and responsible people in the paragraph above is “we”. We always get the politicians we deserve.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2019 3:34 PM
Comment #451876

I think you’re putting democracy ahead of the constitution when you say who decides. You’re assuming the federal government is superior to the state and the individual. You’re insisting the group will dominate. That’s democracy and it’s dangerous.

As far as I’m concerned, laws that are not defined as permissible within the constitution are, by their very existence, unconstitutional.


http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/the-constitutional-role-of-the-federal-government.html
The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;

3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;

4) Copyright protection;

5) Coining money;

6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;

8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.

Those are the only prerogatives of the Feds. The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. individual Americans). So the Feds are not allowed to handle any issues not explicitly listed in the Constitution; their prerogatives are limited to what the Constitution explicitly states.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 5:11 PM
Comment #451877

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/the-constitutional-role-of-the-federal-government.html

FY2010 federal tax revenue was sufficient to finance the Pentagon, the State Department, the USPS, the ITC, and the few other federal agencies authorized by the Constitution, but it wasn’t enough to finance an intrusive federal establishment that tinkers with the environment, oil corporations, schools, hospitals, railroads, subways, and highways.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 5:20 PM
Comment #451878

Weary, income, and other taxes levied by the federal government, are constitutional as found by the Supreme Court.

Taxation authorized by an appropriate (federal, state, local) government body is not considered a limitation on our freedom.

We elect those authorized to tax and spend; therefore, the “buck” stops with “us”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 21, 2019 5:53 PM
Comment #451879

The most obvious example will be Social Security. The federal government is not authorized by the constitution to administer a social safety net. It should not be able to exist at the federal level unless a constitutional amendment is ratified giving the federal government the authority. That hasn’t been done.

Just because the federal government is authorized to extort and confiscate income tax, the 16th amemdment doesn’t grant the authority to spend it on a mandatory social safety net. An amendment must be be written and ratified for it to legally do so.

The states can set up their own safety net if they choose. Local governments can set up their own also. Individuals can as well. I’m all for that. No one needs the federal government to force individuals to do so. No one should be subjected to a mandatory SS system by the federal government. It isn’t authorized in the constitution. It’s very existence limits choice and therefore limits freedom.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 8:25 PM
Comment #451880

I have worked my entire life and 15% of my wage has gone into the SS system. I am very, very close to collecting on it, however, if I were to die tomorrow my entire investment would vanish. My estate would see none of it. It would simply disappear. Poof.

I consider that to be theft. I have no choice. I had no choice in entering the SS system. I had no choice in contributing to it throughout my life. I have no choice as to when I can get a return on it. What remains is confiscated at the end of my life. Everything about it is dictated from on high, from a federal government who has no legal authority to do so.

How, in what universe, is that called freedom?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 8:36 PM
Comment #451881

If tomorrow I was diagnosed with a life threatening illness and 30,000$ was needed for treatment that would cure me, do I have a choice to use the money I’ve been paying into SS on that cure? I’ve paid enough into it. Everyone keeps saying it’s my money. Can I use it to be able to keep working, keep paying into the SS system? Or will I die and that money that was sitting there the entire time simply vanish?

I’m simply amazed how an entire nation, generations, can be brainwashed into believing the current SS system is the best thing since sliced bread. I’m gobsmacked! The lies used to perpetuate this.. it’s my money.. there’s no way to privatize… Republicans will take it away!… It’s all fake news to perpetuate an unconstitutional confiscation of wealth. We’re been told to give up the American way of life for fake promises! Remember..

What government gives you, it can also take away.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 21, 2019 8:59 PM
Comment #451883

WW, my dad smoked and came down with lung cancer at the age of 62. He passed in the same month his first SS check arrived and my mother returned his first check.

You put a few hundred people in a room and give them a pork side and a sausage grinder and they will figure out how to made sausage.

The House and Senate are segmented under ‘committee chairman’. Everything goes thru the chair. Big biz chooses which chair to lobby; justice, commerce, defense, and so on …

Cheaper and more efficient that way … they like it …

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 21, 2019 9:52 PM
Comment #451884

Bigtime quid pro quo wouldn’t you say?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 21, 2019 9:58 PM
Comment #451887

We’re putting a few hundred people in a room and letting them steal everything they put in the grinder, which they also stole.

I’m sorry for your father’s demise, however everyone who had increases in their health insurance can attribute those increases to choices such as those made by your father. No one forced him to smoke, yet the federal government believes they can force people to buy health insurance, subsidizing those harmful choices.

It’s strange how people can have the freedom to smoke cigarettes, but their freedom to chose whether they buy health insurance or not is threatened. We hold dear the freedom to make the choices that compel the sausage making, then we’re forced, as a whole, to subsidize the consequences of those choices.


Posted by: Weary Willie at December 22, 2019 12:18 PM
Comment #451908

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/22/study-immigration-redistribute-26-congressional-seats-blue-states-2020-election/

We need to repeal the law that limits the house to 435 seats.
According to the U.S. Constitution a representative is assigned to every 30,000 people. Today, our house of representatives should have over 11,000 seats. Instead it has a limit of 435. If this trend continues CA and NY will have a combined total of 387 seats and every other state will have 1.

I claim taxation without representation. My representation is being eroded away by the large cities. Every seat assigned to a large city/state is taken from a smaller, less populated state. This is wrong. This is why this law should be repealed. A 435 member house is not mandated by the constitution.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 23, 2019 9:18 AM
Comment #451909

The federal tax system is certainly not fair, and taxes are out-of-control (though not as bad as most other countries), and consists of many dozens (maybe hundreds) of different taxes (which is ridiculous).

Taxman, by the Beatles

  • One, two, three, four, one, two
  • Let me tell you how it will be
  • There’s one for you, nineteen for me
  • ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
  • Should five per cent appear too small
  • Be thankful I don’t take it all
  • ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
  • If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
  • If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
  • If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat
  • If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet
  • ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
  • Don’t ask me what I want it for
  • (Ah ah, Mr. Wilson)
  • If you don’t want to pay some more
  • (Ah…

The ordinary person may have to pay sales taxes, fuel taxes, income taxes, state income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, property tax, tollways fees, estate taxes (i.e. death tax), excise taxes, surtaxes, and whatever all those taxes are on my mobile phone bill.
Only 7 states don’t have state income taxes: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming

Posted by: d.a.n at December 23, 2019 3:19 PM
Comment #451910

d.a.n, how can we go about inviting more people to visit WatchBlog?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 23, 2019 10:03 PM
Comment #451911

What was it that set off the founders? A stamp tax?

Your list of taxes is an example of how much freedom we’ve surrendered to our very own government.

Royal Flush is content with a thriving stock market. I am too! But, this is the small version of what I have considered our flaw. We’re willing to invest in long term stability with short term prosperity. We did it big time after WWII. We had nothing but customers. We made long term commitments and justified them with short term prosperity.
That short term is coming to an end. The nations that were devastated during WWII are now thriving competitors.

Maybe it’s time to say it’s ok to be simple. I want to be like The Nox.

I think Naturalists can relate to this species.

I’m all for advancement in technology, whatever that technology is, whatever that interest is. I’m all for it.
Just don’t force it on me by making me constantly upgrade my own property.

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 23, 2019 10:42 PM
Comment #451931
Weary Willie wrote: d.a.n, how can we go about inviting more people to visit WatchBlog?
I don’t know. When WatchBlog started (about 2003), there wasn’t as much other social media as there is today, and that means there’s a lot of competition, and:
  • news sources with their own blogs,
  • FaceBook(2.23 Billion MAUs (Monthly Active Users)),
  • YouTube(1.9B MAUs),
  • WhatsApp(1.5B MAUs),
  • Messenger(1.3B MAUs),
  • WeChat(1.06B MAUs),
  • InstaGram(1B MAUs),
  • QQ,
  • Tumblr,
  • QZone,
  • Tik Tok,
  • Sina Weibo,
  • Twitter,
  • Reddit,
  • Baidu Tieba,
  • LinkedIn,
  • Viber,
  • SnapChat,
  • Pinterest,
  • Line,
  • Telegram,
  • Medium(60 Million MAUs),
  • etc., etc., etc.
Also, people are making money on FaceBook, YouTube, and other sites.
Most of the posts each day on WatchBlog today are spam posts (mostly on the Democrat column).
Everything is changing everywhere all the time, and it is hard to compete with all of the above today.
News sources with blogs probably get most of the political comments and discussion based on headlines for the day, but I’ve noticed that some are selective about removing certain comments.
And that’s the problem today with many of the news sources and social media sites. They are biased.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 24, 2019 9:15 AM
Comment #451939

Agree with all d.a.n. said. Change has come to blog world. Fewer people have PC’s and laptops. Poking on a small device generally limits input to something like 20 - 30 words.

Most responses today are limited to something like ‘awesome’ or ‘awful’ and so on …

Wouldn’t doubt that some of the last dim bloggers on this site were being paid for their time/words by Soros and similar.

Facebook and twitter seem to carry the main thrust of mass communications today. My suggestion is for d.a.n. to parcel out his information on facebook. Maybe we could form a group where comments can be SHARED. The group mite grow biggly.

I believe our effort should be to ‘educate’ the world with ‘Trumpism’ leading up to the 2020. Folks we have to win that election, can take no chances. I believe we could do way more on FB.

I really like the ‘Virginia 2A sanctuary’ set up on FB. It’s huge and so well organized with input from across the US and the world. No other country has a constitution touting a 2nd amendment thanks be to GOD and our forefathers. Only thing I don’t like is that the group setup doesn’t allow for sharing with the public. Are any of you fellows a member of this group? Going to be big in Richmond on 20Jan. Check out ‘vcdl.org’

Seems we could stay with WB for the friendship but also be on FB to get the word out to the masses.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 24, 2019 9:46 PM
Comment #451942

I visit the news blogs quite a bit, but they have a lot of limitations (such as no URLs allowed, which makes it hard to include sources.

Roy, IF you have a FB account, can you send me a FB invite?

Roy, I’ve been watching and re-watching the OANN reports about the money-laundering in Ukraine by Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and some others. It was reported that $156 Million was funneled to Hunter Biden, and some money was funneled to Franklin Templeton, in which Adam Schiff has an account also. Shokin was poisoned with Mercury, but he survived. It looks more and more like there are some really dirty, corrupt people in the State Department, FBI, CIA, and DOJ.

Democrats have been accusing Trump and other people of crimes, when many Democrats and members of the deep state are the true criminals.

Here’s a paragraph from OANN:

OAN Investigates
EXCLUSIVE: Watch the unraveling of the biggest political scandal in US history. Travel with OAN’s Chanel Rion and Rudy Giuliani to Budapest and Kiev to capture explosive first-hand interviews with key Ukrainian officials highlighting DNC collaborated foreign interference into the 2016 presidential election. Hear the shocking first hand testimony of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin on why he was fired and what corruption he uncovered.

Read More Here …

IF THIS IS TRUE, TI’S SHOCKIKG !!!

Posted by: d.a.n at December 25, 2019 3:41 AM
Comment #454063

Why am I not surprised that D.A.N. is a Trumpie? I suppose you’ve earned the purgatory that is your need to support that mindless orange stain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 3, 2020 12:32 AM
Comment #454098

It isn’t surprising that Stephen Daugherty is still a Democrat, and suffering from TDS.
Bernie Sanders is probably Stephen’s favorite candidate for POTUS?
After all, Bernie, and other democrats, are promising lots and lots of free stuff.

Many people don’t agree with everything that Trump says and does, but:

At any rate, many thanks to Stephen for only using “I” twice in two sentences, and for being the gift that keeps on giving, over the many years.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 3, 2020 9:43 PM
Post a comment