HOW MUCH IS IN THE BILL FOR AMERICA'S ONE MILLION HOMELESS?
|
|
Magnet! Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion bill hands cash to illegals worth more than annual per capita income of 74 countries
Imagine you are a Honduran. If you make the average Honduran per capita income of $2,405.70 a year, and suddenly learn from a relative up in el norte that Joe Biden is handing out $3,600 a year to anyone in the U.S., legally present or not, for nothing more than having kids, what would you do?
According to the Washington Free Beacon:
President Joe Biden’s budget includes a provision that provides billions of dollars in cash to illegal aliens with children.
...
Families, regardless of their legal status, would be eligible to receive checks of $3,600 per year per child. The Democratic bill would amount to a universal basic income for parents residing in the country. Under U.S. law, illegal immigrants are barred from enjoying the benefits of federal entitlements.
Proportionally, that cash would be the equivalent of a $95,089.56 free ride, based on the U.S. average per capita annual income of $63,543.60.
You'd weigh your options, and decide what your best ones were. One, you could be breaking your back to earn the $2,405.70 a year back in Tegucigalpa, assuming you were earning the average (and at least half the country earns less). Or two, you could go to the states illegally, get a federal tax I.D. and the $3,600 would be yours. And as a bonus, you'd qualify it the minute you broke into the country illegally, and you wouldn't have to lift a finger to work for it. All you'd have to do is bring the kids. You'd also be get free health care, free education, other cash benefits for the kids, and this doesn't even include the benefits handed out by states such as California, such as free housing and cash transfers. You'd also free to earn more if you wanted, legally or illegally, since under Biden, there'd be no possibility of deportation once you break in.
What would you do?
Seems like only a fool wouldn't hotfoot it over to the states and take the free stuff.
That's what's set to come should Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion "budget reconciliation" somehow pass in Congress. The cost to U.S. taxpayers, according to the Washington Free Beacon, should be "between $2.025 billion to $2.43 billion" a year, assuming no one else comes. What's on offer here is an absolute magnet for illegal immigration from across the world, as if there weren't already enough such incentives already laid down by Joe Biden in what illegal migrants are reading as his invitation to come.
I use the example of Honduras because there is so much illegal immigration coming in from that country already without the free cash from Biden. But there actually are 57 countries whose per capita income is less than that of Honduras, according to the World Bank, which make the incentive to come even greater.
Worldwide, there are 74 nations with per capita incomes below the $3,600 level. Another five nations have per capita incomes below $4,000, including migrant-exporting Ukraine and El Salvador, as well as very large Indonesia. Large numbers of these countries (Pakistan, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran, Nigeria, Cambodia, Haiti, India, Sudan, Somalia ) have large family immigrant networks already settled in the states. For would-be illegals, it wouldn't be much trouble to come on over on a visit if not overland with the coyotes, situate with a relative, and then take the big gringo's free $3,200.
The Beacon notes that the cash pretty much amounts to a universal basic income. Because many migrants can live on that amount, it may well be just that for the less motivated. But for the more motivated, there's the prospect of working in the U.S. illegally, papers or not, and the cash from Uncle Sam means they can take very low wage jobs --- lower than the minimum in fact -- to raise their standards of living. That amounts to downward pressure on American workers' wages as new competition comes into the job marketplace that can work for less. Sound like a good deal for American workers? It's not just a goody bag for foreign lawbreakers, it's a shiv to the side for the American worker.
That's appalling, and one more reason why this $3.5 trillion monstrosity must be sunk to the bottom of the sea by Congress -- with cement shoes.
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License
It is too easy to spend other people’s money
As I write in early October 2021, the U.S. National Debt Clock exceeds an utterly sickening $28.8 trillion. That is the number 28 with 12—twelve—more numbers behind it!
Let’s try a little exercise using some of the numbers from the debt clock, but let’s lop off eight zeros to make it a comprehensible number—a “household number.” It also makes it easier because those eight numbers furthest to the right on the clock are increasing so rapidly as to make the number inaccurate in just a few minutes.
Use the link, try it at home with your family, too! Consider all this:
- Annual income stated as U.S. Federal Tax Revenue ($3.8675 trillion). For our purposes, our annual income is $38,675.
- Our annual spending, represented by official (not actual) U.S. Federal Spending is $6.8679 trillion; we will consider the number $68,679.
- Our annual budget deficit is over $3.0004 trillion, or, for us, $30,004.
We can immediately see that we have a major issue here because we are spending almost double our annual income and increasing our debt by massive amounts every year.
It gets worse.
Because we have been on a perpetual, unbridled spending spree and appear committed to buying everything the “sales team” shows us, our total household debt for all years exceeds $288,370. The actual number is almost $29 trillion—$28,837,062,000,000.
Please closely examine that number. That is 28 trillion, 837 billion, 62 million dollars...and growing so quickly the numbers on the right side of the counter are a blur.
Now let’s review:
- on a household income of $38,675, we spend almost twice what we earn, over-spending by over three-quarters (77.5%).
- our debt just this year will exceed $30,000.
- our total “household” debt is rapidly approaching $289,000.
With those facts in place, let’s try to answer some simple, honest questions:
- What bank would give us another credit card, with a household income of less than $40,000 and an already existing debt approaching $289,000?
- How many American families qualify for a mortgage of $289,000 on less than $40,000 in family income?
- What if the “children” knew what Mom and Dad had done to their inheritance? As it is, it no longer exists, and our progeny will have only a cavernous, ruinous, hole from which neither we nor our children nor their children will ever be able to free themselves.
So, let me ask again (yes, I believe the repetition and redundancy in making the same points are absolutely necessary): With that profit-and-loss statement, with that balance sheet, with proof of income and the abysmal credit rating that assuredly accompanies the reality that has been presented, what bank would issue us a new credit card? And at what interest rate?
The current White House resident, Joe Biden, went to the microphones and read the teleprompter on Monday, to scold those wascally wepuplicans because they will not go along with his and his Democrat party’s request for more credit cards. Refusing to give him and his Democrat party big spenders more credit with which to further sink future generations would be “reckless and dangerous” he says. “We have to pay what we owe,” he says, and it is “not anything new.”
“Raising the debt limit is about paying off our old debts,” he says. Rriiiiigghhtt…
Just imagine for a moment what you might say to your teenage or even young adult children if they came to you with that load of manure. What would probably make me the angriest, and what would concern me the most, would be the complete lack of respect and utter faithlessness which they just demonstrated in me, that they thought I was that effing stupid to believe that...malodorous pile of...manure.
Well, that is apparently where we are. The White House’s installed teleprompter reader apparently believes we are that stupid. We need more credit cards to pay for the overwhelming pile of debt we acquired with our now-maxed-out credit cards.
If the feds confiscate everything that we earn next year and every penny of what our economy produces, it wouldn’t be enough to pay for the debt and wipe the slate clean. They will never be able to tax us enough to pay for all the...manure...under which they want to bury us.
Here are some ideas for the next 3,000-plus page bill they want everyone to approve but not read:
- term limits.
- a balanced budget or no pay for members of Congress.
- (add your own list here.)
Gear up, and let’s get started. Generations yet unborn are depending on us to put an end to this insanity.
Jeff Lewis is a Christian, a husband and father, a Veteran, and a self-employed small business owner.
Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas announces new immigration priorities
JOE BIDEN: NO DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR SHOULD HAVE TO PAY A LIVING WAGE TO NO LEGAL!
Chris Hedges | NAFTA Was CRIMINAL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-104JMiZes&list=WL&index=5
Chris Hedges | NAFTA, Clinton, and Obama BETRAYED Americans... and Joe Biden was right there with the worst of them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qryblALiqOI
Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality
Right-wing Democrats dictate cuts in Biden social policy
The Biden administration has responded to pressure from a right-wing minority among House and Senate Democrats by slashing its proposed social spending increase nearly in half.
Biden delivered the news to a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic caucus Friday afternoon, telling them the overall cost of the reconciliation bill would come down from the $3.5 trillion proposed by the White House to between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion, far closer to the $1.5 trillion ceiling backed by West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.
Manchin and Arizona Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema have opposed passage of the social spending legislation by means of the reconciliation procedure, which allows the Democrats to bypass a Republican filibuster in the closely divided Senate. The procedure can only be used on a spending bill, and only once in a fiscal year.
The House Progressive Caucus, which comprises nearly half the 220 Democrats in the House of Representatives, has blocked passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, approved in August by the Senate, until the two right-wing Senate Democrats reach agreement with the White House on the reconciliation package.
Their opposition forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to push back a planned September 27 vote on the infrastructure bill, agreed to with another small right-wing faction of Democrats in the House, first until October 1, and then until October 31, a decision she announced in a letter made public Saturday.
Biden made his in-person visit to the Capitol, his first since delivering a nationally televised address last April, to discuss the deadlock with the Democratic caucus. He brought something for both factions: a fig-leaf concession on procedure to the “progressives” and a near-total victory on substance to the right-wing.
Biden endorsed Pelosi’s delay in the infrastructure vote, despite grumbling from some of the House right-wingers, explaining that it was necessary to reach a deal with Manchin and Sinema on the reconciliation bill so the two pieces of legislation could be passed “in tandem.” But he went much more than halfway towards Manchin on substance, giving him an effective veto over the top-line number.
This cave-in to a small minority—two out of 50 Democrats in the Senate, eight out of 220 in the House—cannot be explained by parliamentary arithmetic in a closely divided Congress. The power of Manchin, Sinema and their counterparts in the House is explained by their voicing most clearly the demands of corporate America, particularly in their opposition to tax increases on the wealthy and big business, as well as any significant expansion of the social safety net.
The decision by the White House to accept a much lower price tag for the social spending bill now sets in motion a Hunger Games-style competition between the various social programs that were components of the reconciliation bill: making the child tax credit permanent; adding vision, hearing and dental care to Medicare; expanding Medicaid in states where Republican governors have blocked it; providing paid home health care for the elderly; expanding Head Start through universal pre-kindergarten for three- and four-year-olds; one week of paid family and medical leave; initiating a policy of free tuition for community colleges; and spending on a number of programs to combat climate change.
There is reportedly now debate in the White House and among congressional Democrats involving whether to fully fund some of these programs and eliminate others, or to fund some of the programs for less than the full 10 years provided in the original bill, or some combination of the two methods. Manchin has proposed means-testing some of the programs, although this is supposedly not under consideration.
“The whole shrinking of the pie pits Medicare recipients against poor families against home care workers against victims of climate change,” Faiz Shakir, former campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, told the Washington Post. “It makes the working class of America fight over the scraps.”
Shakir’s former boss, however, was enthusiastic about Biden’s intervention and praised it to the skies in several appearances on the Sunday television interview programs. Interviewed on “Meet the Press” on NBC in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Sanders said that he did not believe Biden had given any specific number in his remarks to the House Democrats.
“What he said is there’s going to have to be give and take on both sides,” Sanders said. “I’m not clear that he did bring forth a specific number. But what the president also said, and what all of us are saying, is that maybe the time is now for us to stand up to powerful special interests who are currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prevent us from doing what the American people want.”
On the ABC program “This Week” Sanders said, “Three and a half trillion should be a minimum, but I accept that there’s gonna have to be give and take.” He then went on to make an extraordinary tribute to the Democratic leadership, headed by Biden: “We are not just taking on or dealing with Senators Manchin or Senator Sinema. We’re taking on the entire ruling class of this country. Right now the drug companies, the health care—the health insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry are spending hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent us from doing what the American people want. And this really is a test of whether or not American democracy can work.”
One would think that the red flag had been raised above the White House! Joe Biden was a six-term senator who protected the interests of the credit card industry and the corporations headquartered in Delaware, while Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has long been known as the “Senator from Wall Street” for his close ties to the stock exchange and major banks. To claim that they are “taking on the entire ruling class” is to lie without scruple or remorse.
The former co-chair of the Sanders campaign, Representative Ro Khanna of California, was equally effusive in his embrace of Biden. Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” he said he relied on the White House to sort out which social policy proposals would survive the reduction from $3.5 trillion to $2 trillion or even less. “Ultimately the president is an honest broker,” he said. “He’s going to bring all of the stakeholders together. And I trust his judgment to get a compromise.”
Asked whether blocking the infrastructure bill constituted opposition to the White House, he replied, “I would not have contradicted the president’s vision. What I have said—consistently what most progressives have said is we want to do what the president wants.”
Perhaps the most abject display came from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who told CBS that the Democrats were already beginning to sort out how to implement the cuts in proposed social spending needed to meet the demands of senators Manchin and Sinema. “I think it’s unfortunate that we have to compromise with ourselves for an ambitious agenda for working people,” she said, then urged people to “reach out to their elected officials to let them know what programs they want to make sure are kept.”
Asked about her statement last year that in any other country she and Biden would be in different parties, she said, “I think that President Biden has been a good faith partner to the entire Democratic Party. He is in fact a moderate and we disagree on certain issues. But he reaches out and he actually tries to understand our perspective, and that is why I am fighting for his agenda with the Build Back Better Act.”
The contempt with which the real powers in the Democratic Party regard their left-talking colleagues was expressed in another comment on “Meet the Press,” by Jeh Johnson, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, the enforcer of mass deportations and counter-terrorism policies.
Host Chuck Todd asked him about the headline on the Democratic Party crisis in Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, “Biden Throws In With Left, Leaving His Agenda in Doubt.” Johnson dismissed the newspaper’s claim that Biden siding with the progressives. “Let’s not forget that the bill the progressives are pushing for is Biden's bill,” he said. “It’s his domestic agenda.”
Johnson continued, “It’s not as if it’s some wild-eyed far-left socialist piece of legislation. This is Joe Biden’s Build Back Better domestic agenda. And the progressives are carrying his water on Capitol Hill and appear to be doing it rather effectively right now.”
Water boys (and girls) for Biden and the Democratic Party: A fitting political epitaph for Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their DSA and pseudo-left cheerleaders.
Dems Tuck Multibillion-Dollar Handout to Illegal Immigrants Into Reconciliation
Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill gives migrants same child benefits as Americans
President Joe Biden’s budget includes a provision that provides billions of dollars in cash to illegal aliens with children.
The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill extends the Child Tax Credit to anyone in the United States who provides an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, overturning a crucial safeguard against fraud. Federal law required a valid Social Security number to receive the cash transfer from the federal government. The potential payout for illegal immigrants is massive, with each family receiving a monthly payment of $250 to $300 per child.
A survey from the Pew Research Center found that roughly 675,000 children are not eligible for a Social Security number, making the tax credit expansion for illegal aliens cost between $2.025 billion to $2.43 billion a year. Other estimates put the total number of illegal children residing in the United States at more than 800,000.
Families, regardless of their legal status, would be eligible to receive checks of $3,600 per year per child. The Democratic bill would amount to a universal basic income for parents residing in the country. Under U.S. law, illegal immigrants are barred from enjoying the benefits of federal entitlements.
The Alarm Bells are Ringing for American Citizenship
The Dying Citizen by Victor Davis Hanson
Basic Books, October, 2021
Victor Davis Hanson, the classics scholar and military historian, has written or co-authored two dozen books and many hundreds of articles. His latest book, The Dying Citizen, is a powerful and carefully developed argument for preserving American citizenship, a unique patrimony now under attack in many ways from many sources, and from all appearances, a losing battle.
Hanson provides a history of the concept of citizenship dating back to the Greeks and Romans and makes clear how rare the American experience has been in creating a modern citizenry with both rights and responsibilities. Hanson’s book was mostly written from 2018 through early 2020, and contains a final chapter which updates the impact of the calamitous last year on the citizenship issue, dominated by the coronavirus, racial unrest and a bitterly fought presidential election. Hanson argues that the Trump presidency pushed back against the forces diminishing American citizenship with some modest success from 2017 to 2019, but the events of the past year led to a reversal of those gains, and the prospect of greater threats than existed before.
Hanson’s book contains six primary chapters, each addressing a specific threat to American citizenship, as it was understood in our founding documents, and expanded through political participation for women and races and ethnicities different from the original predominant majority culture.
The first chapter, “Peasants,” maintains that for a people to be self-governing, they must be economically autonomous. In essence, they need to avoid dependency on either the “private wealthy or the state.” A healthy middle class enables economic self-reliance and autonomy. Politicians from both parties are always claiming they are fighting for the middle class, but if they have been doing this, they have been failing on their promises, as evidenced by a hollowing out of much of America as its industrial and manufacturing base faltered, and major parts moved overseas and the failure to replace the lost opportunities with “good jobs with good wages.”
Without a sustainable and thriving middle class, society becomes divided between “modern masters and peasants.” In this circumstance, government assumes a responsibility to subsidize the poor to dampen any possibility of revolution, and exempt the wealthy, who respond by enriching and empowering the governing classes. The current attempt by Democrats in Congress to pass a massive “human infrastructure” bill is part of developing a cradle-to-grave dependency for much of the citizenry (and non-citizens as well) on government welfare programs.
Chapter 2, “Residents,” argues for privileging citizens over non-citizens (residents). Citizens live within “delineated and established borders.” Citizens share values, and they assimilate and integrate into what becomes a national character. But today, many argue for a borderless world, and opening America to the world’s 8 billion people. They ask, “Why should those fortunate enough to have been born here, or been legally allowed to enter under various quotas or other limits, be privileged above those others who would also benefit from living here rather than where they are now living and fleeing?”
The collapse of the American southern border under the current Biden administration was not an accident, but a plan. It fits an ideology that more people moving here, from wherever they may have come, is better for America, since it makes us look more like the rest of the world going forward. Naturally, there is a political dimension to this ideology, since it assumes that when the new residents become citizens at some point, they will align with the political party favoring mass immigration and open borders.
Hanson argues that people will naturally want to move to a country with political rights, a Bill of Rights, economic opportunity, and a generous welfare system to tide them over in the short term or forever. Immigrants don’t see America in the critical fashion of many of its current citizens, but as better than the places they left, but will they accept the responsibility of citizenship, as well as its bounty?
Chapter 3, “Tribes,” argues for American citizenship, not tribal identification -- whether racial, ethnic, religious, or a former nationality. Regrettably, America is on a different course in this area, and the exit velocity away from Hanson’s ideal is accelerating. In pretty much every sphere of American society, we have moved away from individualism and rewarding achievement and accomplishment to counting participation rates by group shares, striving towards some ideal of equalizing results in every aspect of modern life.
Rather than encouraging citizens to compete for society’s rewards, we are moving to having them distributed based on race or group size. Immigration plays a role in this since it is part of a strategy for some to reduce one group’s size and share and power. In addition, our modern-day overseers feel free to tarnish all those who came before who failed to achieve the perfection of racial and ethnic distribution -- equity as it is now called. Why study American history when the country has been so flawed? If everyone sees themselves first as members of a group, rather than citizens of a country, then Hanson argues, a constitutional republic cannot exist. ,
Chapter 4, “Unelected” describes how an unelected, appointed and permanent and rapidly growing federal bureaucracy has become the political power center of America . New rules issued by myriad federal agencies dwarf the output of Congress, even with the mammoth omnibus spending bills written by lobbyists and congressional staff and unread by the representatives who vote to make them laws.
Congress members are first and foremost concerned with their future electoral prospects. The bureaucrats survive changes in administration and party control of the White House or Congress. Bureaucrats are the experts who believe they know better than the masses what is good for them, but they also are always on guard to prevent any elected newcomer who seems to operate outside the established lines observed by most elected officials from both parties. Donald Trump was a threat since he did not come to office pledging allegiance to the established unelected power structure and various federal intelligence agencies took it upon themselves to destroy his Presidency from the start with the crafting of a Russia collusion narrative, which was nonsense.
Chapter 5, ”Evolutionaries,” documents those who think our founding documents, and constitutional framework, with its balance of enumerated powers, federalism , and individual rights, has outlived its usefulness. They say that a modern constitution is required, which at its heart is majoritarian in all ways -- 50% plus 1 shall determine the direction of the country. This is playing out as enormous programs of social change and redistribution are on the agenda for a single party to use tiny majorities in Congress to get its way.
But it is not enough, to have a single budget reconciliation bill passed each fiscal year. The left would prefer the Senate to become like the House: shares by population, rather than 2 per state, though this would require an amendment to the Constitution, not possible under current party shares. So, the workaround is to add new states, each with 2 Democrats in places like DC and Puerto Rico.
They want the Electoral College eliminated, also not likely to happen by constitutional amendment, so instead, by a compact among various states to vote for electors of the winning national popular vote ticket. The filibuster should no longer restrain majorities with less than 60 votes and must be tossed into the dustbin of history. Democrats are frighteningly close to being able to do that now, and with a few Senate pickups in 2022, won’t be blocked by a Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema.
New justices need to be appointed to the Supreme Court, since it has a conservative majority, and the progressives are always in the plpanned new order to dominate every decision-making body. New voting rules are to be established at the federal level, bypassing a long history of state control of this process.
The Biden administration is ignoring court orders on evictions, and immigration policy. At the city and state level, governments have made rules which defy federal authority, such as Democrats’ creation of sanctuary cities, and other cities which will not observe federal gun laws. So much for the rule of law.
Perhaps a mandatory reading of the Federalist Papers should be part of every Congress member’s first week in office so that those who want to eliminate or change a process that has worked quite well for over 230 years would begin to understand the reasoning behind the choices which were made in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention, even if that makes progressive shifts more difficult.
Chapter 6, “Globalists,” describes the attempt by those who have reached the pinnacle of power and wealth to move the country and its citizens towards an international or global membership, rather than something as narrow as national citizenship. The world needs to come together (by private jets to Davos) to talk about saving the planet from climate catastrophe and plastic bags. New rules which benefit those who trade and sell across the planet will trump protections for workers and individual nations, and as a result, jobs and entire industries can move from one country to another, many to China. The globalists are certain of course that their preferred political and social currency of unrestrained democracy, and liberal tolerance, are what people around the world want.
Hanson’s final chapter, “Epilogue,” details how the Trump administration pushed back against the destruction of the middle class, open borders, the bureaucracy (the “deep state”), and the effort to privilege racial and ethnic groups over individuals. Concern for an economic class rather than a racial or ethnic group turned out to have appeal to members of these groups, when their economic condition improved as the economy responded to tax cuts, deregulation, and pushback against Chinese trade practices. President Trump appeared to have a good chance for a second term, as 2020 began with record low unemployment rates for members of various minority groups and strong national economic growth.
Covid 19 quickly changed that scenario. Large sections of the economy were shut down. Governors applied stringent lockdowns on vast sectors of their state economies. In person school ended, preventing family members from working if their jobs were still available. People were frightened with mixed and rapidly changing, advice from the “health professionals.”
States changed their voting rules, often in ways that violated their own established state policies and constitutions, making the election process less secure. Many Americans also came face to face with the fact that many drugs, facemasks, respirators, and other basic medical supplies were not produced in America, but in China or other lower wage locations. Our managing through the pandemic required their provision of goods, until any replacement manufacturing could begin again here.
Americans, the once rugged individualists of old, seemed often to want to cuddle up under their warm state governors’ blankets and follow all the rules, since they knew best. Those who spoke up or challenged the orthodoxy were silenced or lost their jobs. This included election news, with major social networking companies and cloud computing hosts prohibiting viewpoints or news stories which threatened the approved party line and could endanger the Democratic ticket before the November election. This development has become much more of a problem under the Biden administration. “Following the science” became following the determinations of political players, who made political decisions more than scientific ones.
If citizens lose their freedom of speech, if the press becomes a politically compliant advocate for one party, if jobs are at risk based on vaccination status (anything to lift sagging poll numbers), if election rules can be changed overnight and not by those who are given the legal power to do so, then we are at a crisis point in the country, and citizens will have lost their authority and ability to select the government that is supposed to serve them.
Hanson‘s subtitle reads: “How Progressive elites, tribalism and globalization are destroying the idea of America.” American citizens will preserve their Republic or they will lose it. There are lots of countries, but only one America.
No comments:
Post a Comment