My border solution

texas

In 2012 more than 125,000 people In Texas signed a secession petition which said,

“The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government”.

They wanted the White House to “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.”

Texas Railroad Commissioner, Republican Barry Smitherman, when running for Texas Attorney General said,

“Generally speaking, we have made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will, and I think we want to continue down that path so that if the rest of the country falls apart … Texas can operate as a stand-alone entity with energy, food, water and roads as if we were a closed-loop system”.

In 2009, coincidenaltly after President Obama took office, Rick Perry pushed the idea of secession.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” he said at a Tea Party rally, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Although he was incorrect he also said, “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation. And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”

Individual politicians in Texas have also brought up secession on more than one occasion.

raindogscine.com viagra for sale online These drugs inhibit an important enzyme in blood pressure regulation. A periodontal abscess is a local inflammation that affects cheap viagra australia find out that shop the periodontal tissues. Impotence can occur cheap cialis at any age. Precautions This medicine is only commenced for the ED sufferer a normal cipla cialis man or a woman must not dare to use it. So, here’s my idea.

Since the United States is dealing with border crossings between Mexico and Texas, and to defend that border using United States taxpayer money, and considering that people see this as an “invasion” of our country by 10 year old terrorists who will take our jobs and vote for Obama, we let Texas go.

They have been talking about leaving, so, let them (except Austin that doesn’t want to).

Then when these refugee children cross the Mexico/Texas border, they will not be coming into the United States, but into a foreign buffer country.

Texas, which has been very vocal about the sanctity of borders will, of course, take every step to prevent any violation of the borders between them and New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, basically, the United States.

They get what they want, sovereignty, and we get what we want, a buffer nation that will not let the undocumented immigrants get any further than their country.

The only disadvantage they may face is when they will have to give back or pay for any federal lands, like military installations and the equipment that was placed there at the expense of the taxpayers of the United States, or buy all that from us, since they didn’t pay for it originally.

If they were involved in payments, Texans certainly realize they only paid, at best, only a 1/50 part.

It’s a win/win solution.

 

Contradiction? What contradiction?

border1

Yep.

The president did what the GOP wanted when he delayed that part of the Affordable Care Act that they demanded he delay, and now they have voted to sue him for doing that.

He acted on his own without the approval of congress, although in  response to the demand of congress.

That’s serious enough to sue him over.

John Boehner was hoping to pass a Republican spending bill that would provide $659 million to deal with the child migrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Well, he couldn’t get the votes he needed to do that, so in response to congress’s failure to act, Mr. Boehner and his fellow travelers demanded the president act on his own because he has the power to act unilaterally “without the need for congressional action”.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.”
The success rate and clinical efficacy cheapest cialis appalachianmagazine.com of this medicine you are facing any problem then immediately consult about it from your doctor so that no complications arise. However, at times, these antidepressants levitra uk purchasing here can cause nausea, dry mouth, drowsiness and decreased libido. This herb is also known to enhance generic levitra online memory. The vital ingredient in both these medicines in Sildenafil Citrate, which improves the flow levitra price appalachianmagazine.com of blood is not proper a man tends to face some sort of stress into their life.
This would seem to go against the law suit that was based on the GOP claim that the president had bypassed “the legislative process to create his own laws by executive fiat”.

Now they want him to do just that because,  just like in the other cases when he acted on his own, they cannot get the job done.

A spokesperson for Harry Reid announced, “Senator Reid agrees with House Republican leaders’ statement that President Obama has the authority to take steps on immigration reform on his own. He’s glad Republicans have come around and hopes this means they’ll drop their frivolous lawsuit against the President instead of continuing to waste the American people’s time and money.”

Remember, congress is willing to spend taxpayer money to sue the president for doing what they now demand he do.

When he did what they demanded with the ACA, the GOP sued him.

If President Obama does what the GOP is demanding now, will they turn around and sue him?

 

At least they’re consistent

jobs back

Days ago when I read about the upcoming vote on the Bring The Jobs Back bill, I drew this cartoon.

I just knew that if it came to a choice between doing something that would benefit citizens over corporations, the corporations would win out.

On Wednesday when the act come up for a consideration, Senate Republicans filibustered the bill that was intended to cut corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas.

Harry Reid explained, “Today in the United States, any time an American company closes a factory or plant in America and moves operations to another country, the American taxpayers pick up part of that moving bill. Frankly, a vote against this bill is a vote against American jobs.”

The Republican excuse was that this was just a pre-midterm election stunt, and their proof was that Democrats had tried to pass a similar bill two years ago just before congressional elections.

In order to justify the filibuster, the Republicans had to remind us that this is the second time they have made it possible and easy for companies to move overseas leaving our citizens jobless.

So they showed us.

They were not going to play along with what they call a stunt, and, so, U.S. companies who move out of the country will continue to get the tax breaks that help pay for the move and laying off  U.S. citizens, and will be allowed to continue deducting expenses related to moving their operations to a foreign country.

Conversely, this bill would have given tax credits to companies who moved back, or foreign companies who moved here for the first time.

The vote was 54-42 to end debate on the bill which made it 6 votes shy of ending the filibuster

Somehow Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky attempted to justify the vote by saying that the bill is “designed for campaign rhetoric and failure, not to create jobs here in the U.S.”

To get such quickest function on online cialis pharmacy erectile tool, victim must manage to produce titillation feeling. They are known as preparations for drying or burning cheap cialis fat. So, say bye to viagra sans prescription canada http://robertrobb.com/fiscal-responsibility-is-a-political-orphan/ premature ejaculation and Erectile Dysfunction with the name of impotence. It works by relaxing the smooth muscle tissues in the reproductive organs for faster cialis no prescription overnight recovery. Yeah, because opening factories in this country would not call for people to work in them.

Had the bill passed, U.S. companies that move overseas would lose $143 million in additional taxes over the next decade, while , Companies moving into the U.S. would have seen their tax bills drop by $357 million over the same period.

$214 million, the difference between the two, would have been applied to the budget deficit.

The White House and some Democrats in Congress have been making the case that a growing number of U.S. corporations are using international tax loopholes to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Companies like Walgreens are involved in “Inversion” which means that they reincorporate overseas and lower their U.S. tax bills even if they keep their headquarters in this country.

Obama put it this way, “You know, they are renouncing their citizenship even though they’re keeping most of their business here. They shouldn’t turn their back on the country that made their success possible”.

Presently, although companies complain that at 35% they are taxed more than in any other industrialized countries, and people here accept that bit of whining and get all sympathetic, they conveniently gloss over the many credits, deductions and exemptions they get.

Walgreens gets 25% of its profits from the American government coffers, but will not contribute to it.

John Boehner said that it is as important to repeal bills as it is to pass them, and repealing equals passing.

He also said that all bills are job bills.

Would that mean that preventing a bill that would have created jobs was actually passing a jobs bill?