 |
| |
 |
| Welcome Patriots * Campaign 2010 * Public Access * Candidate Interviews * Tough Questions |
Contributing to "Campaign 2010" helps offset the costs of running this program.
Please consider donating to the ONE and ONLY public access media in Laredo.
Any amount is greatly appreciated!
Please consider donating to the ONE and ONLY public access media in Laredo.
Any amount is greatly appreciated!
Interview Archives
Tuesday: Sergio Mora who is
our Democratic Chair for Webb
County. Call In 712-0001
our Democratic Chair for Webb
County. Call In 712-0001
stjohnradio@yahoo.com
| Interview Schedule: |
| COUNTY JUDGE Anonymity guaranteed! Click Here |
| COUNTY COMMISSIONER Anonymity guaranteed! Click Here |
| COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK Anonymity guaranteed! Click Here |
| DISTRICT JUDGE 111th Anonymity guaranteed! Click Here |
WEBB COUNTY CANDIDATES
QUESTIONS / COMMENTS
QUESTIONS / COMMENTS
Jay's Cell: 401-0993
712-0001
Monday - Thursday 7 - 8am
This Weeks Questions & Reads:
Jay, What do you think of the recent polls on HCR?
Daniel Morales - March 12, 2010
Moderate Democrats should be running and running fast from HCR and the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. These
far left wingers continue to completely ignore the reality that most Americans don't want this. While one attacks the
Rasmussen polls as being inaccurate, I find several democrat pollsters in the Washington Post agreeing with
Rasmussen.
By democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, dated March 12, 2010 - Washington Post
"As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled
to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in
course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is
crucial to the success of the American enterprise."
In my view, if this health care bill with it's massive tax increases passes or fails, either way, it’s too late for many
Democratics. I believe the sheer arrogance and cram down have really set the stage for a huge swing in November,
and wishing, praying or pretending will not change the outcome. Many Democrats seeing the light are in fear of
alienating their own base, and yet liberal left wingers belonging to that party continue to spew the same rhetoric.
Furthermore, this massive health bill is doomed to fail one way or the other. In section 3403 of the Senate health bill
concerning Medicare as an example, it says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This of course is un-
constitutional and shows that left wingers who drafted this bill think its legislation is set in stone. Wrong! The
people have always had the right to elect a new Congress to change or even repeal a bill from a previous
administration. Since Health care policies and services won't become effective until 2014 (if the bill passes), a
repeal and/or changes can easily be made.
Take a look at this on the abortion issue:
Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing.
“I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position
says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments
they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the
Democratic party.”
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore
it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up.
Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is
life we’re talking about.”
If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their
own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office.” They don’t
even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”
So the question is Henry Cuellar going to vote yes which would mean he's fine with the government paying for
abortions?
The polls are trying to tell these guys that the Constitution defines and limits to their powers, yet they STILL don't
get it. We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and now they want to
take over health care and the student loan business. A revolt is coming..... comment
Jay, Why do you believe that health care reform legislation is a lie and will harm the country?
One-Sixth of the US Economy is threatened with a takeover by the Federal Government on the erroneous rationale
that 30 million people in the country are being denied access to adequate health care.
This is an absolute lie.
Access to health care providers and medicine of the best health care system in the world is already universal and
available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, illegal’s have figured that one out. If tomorrow the
government bought health insurance policies for everyone who doesn't have one, that wouldn't make access to
health care services any more available than they already are.
Marketing 101 - the law of supply and demand dictates that if 30 million or more new customers are added to a
market place (the demand), and there is no proportional increase in the number of service providers (the supply),
then prices will go up as service availability goes down, which means the whole system gets worse for everyone.
The real issue is that there are those who wish to argue that health care is a basic human right and therefore a
justification for a massive intrusive government entitlement program. I believe health care is not an inalienable
right, it's a basic human necessity, just like food, clothing, and shelter. All of these basic human necessities are
bought and sold everyday in the free market in the context of goods and services.
The reality is that there are those who can pay and those who can’t. For those who can't afford the basic human
necessities of living, then those needs become the basis of voluntary charity and aid. Involuntary charity via
taxation is called "Welfare". So whether it's private charity or a government welfare program that helps people buy
something they otherwise couldn't afford but need, that's fine; just recognize that's the issue.
To further my argument that this is all about government intrusion and control over your life, I ask you to consider
one mathematical fact: 30 million new insurance policies at a average cost $5,000 ea. per year totals $150 billion
dollars per year, which is a fraction of the real price tag of ObamaCare.
The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget
November 20, 2009
“measuring all the costs of the bill for the first ten years after provisions begin (2014 through 2023), it would cost
around $2.5 trillion. This is significantly higher than the $848 billion normally advertised as the cost of the coverage
between 2010 and 2019. It is important to note that, in calculating gross costs, this analysis pulls apart a number of
line items which are generally netted out.”
ObamaCare is simply a lie, whose only practical impact for generations to come will be a increased welfare
dependency on government, increased taxes, greater government intrusion, control over people's personal lives
and privacy, and reduced availability of health care providers as more of them will be driven out; all of which
translates to higher costs and less services.
Not to worry.... If socialized health care is forced through Congress and signed into law, I believe after the
November slaughter of Democrats, this bill will be repealed.
I'm hearing more and more talk of a third party - interesting! comment
Central American Conference at TAMIU was nothing more than a Pipe Dream...
Paul Cavazos - February 24, 2010
The “Dog and Pony” show is over. The kennel and the stall are empty and the last notes of “The Impossible Dream”
have waned. (LMT Feb. 27 Ed workshop facilitates city trade)
Now we who are in the business consider it prudent to separate fact from fiction and the wheat from the chaff.
I am afraid that there was more fiction and chaff than what was expected
It is worth noting that Nuevo Laredo was not invited to participate or be taken into account; after all, if the promise
becomes a reality they would be the main beneficiaries.
They would provide transportation on the longest segment of the trip, plus customs clearance twice plus the
necessary warehousing and storage plus incidental fuel sales etc., plus the fact that the cheapest and fastest way
to come or send freight to Laredo via air is using the Nuevo Laredo airport.
The sessions, according to the Mayor, allowed people from Latin America to understand Laredo.
This they did. They found out it is too far from the source and too far from the important markets.
The subject of motor carrier transportation was not even discussed.
The Guatemalan delegate noticed that we don’t have a USDA-approved facility to handle large volumes of
perishables.
That is located in McAllen.
McAllen has the largest produce terminal outside of the Bronx, N. Y. Buyers no longer have to go visit the growers
in Southern Mexico.
They go to McAllen to inspect and buy.
They found out that no international airline, except Federal Express, has a freight handling terminal at the airport.
The airport has buildings but not the specialized equipment and loading devices required to assemble, load and
unload freighters.
According to Mayor Salinas, “many of the products that will soon be shipped by Central American companies will
be arriving via the ports of Veracruz and Lazaro Cardenas, and some directly via air to the Laredo airport.”
That is nothing but a pipe dream.
There is no service between Mexican ports in the Gulf of Mexico and Central American ports on the Caribbean, and
no steamship company is interested in investing in that route.
There is no business and no need for the service.
There is no service between the port of Lazaro Cardenas and Central American ports on the Pacific.
According to the Panamanian delegate, freight from the Pacific ports is destined for the California and Northwest
markets.
It would be absurd to send goods from Panama to Lazaro Cardenas, to Laredo and from Laredo to the West coast.
The cost would be astronomical
It would have been very helpful if the delegates as well as our Mayor had studied a little geography and considered
the distances between certain points, they would have saved a lot of time and money.
One of the delegates thought of sending the goods to Laredo and from Laredo to Europe.
This was said even though they know — or should know — that there are several vessels a day sailing from
Panama to Europe.
These are not “rust buckets” but vessels doing 35 knots.
By the time the goods reach Laredo, the goods on those vessels would be on the European markets.
The mayor was seen in the media, signing agreements with three countries.
What happened to the other countries the city visited?
Didn’t they go along with the charade?
Breakdown of President Barack Obama’s 2011 Budget, and What are Conservative Solutions to Such
Spending Sprees?
Wall Street Journal - March 4, 2010
Last year, President Obama swept into office on a promise to confront tough choices, and then he released a
budget proposing the largest debt-and-spending spree in American history. With Washington having committed
itself to more government than its taxpayers could realistically afford, basic fiscal responsibility demands that the
President scale back his expensive proposals. Instead, this year's budget is even more fiscally irresponsible.
Obama’s Budget
• Spending. The 2011 budget is $3.8 trillion dollars. Before the recession, the federal government spent about
$24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020, in effect producing
an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government. In fact, of the few areas where spending
was cut, two were with important defense and education programs.
• Taxes. President Obama's 2011 budget calls for $2 trillion in higher taxes over 10 years after subtracting a
relatively insignificant $154 billion in tax cuts. This would be a $17,000 tax increase for every American household
during that span. Though no economic theory justifies raising taxes during a recession, President Obama would
impose nearly $1 trillion in tax hikes for 3.2 million upper-income families and small businesses. He would eliminate
tax breaks for charitable giving and the mortgage interest deduction for millions of Americans. In addition, the
energy taxes known as a cap-and-trade system are expected to pull in about $800 billion primarily from American
businesses and families over the next decade.
• Deficits. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending. After
harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget
would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office, with 2010 earning a $1.6
trillion deficit—$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit. Moreover, President Obama would run up
more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history, from George Washington through
George W. Bush, combined.
A Better Way
If President Obama is serious about reining in spending and closing budget deficits, he needs to propose real and
specific spending cuts. To validate his professed claims of budget stewardship and fiscal discipline Obama should
repeal the economic stimulus and TARP, bring Social Security and Medicare into long-term sustainability, and bring
discretionary spending back to pre-recession levels. It would also mean putting the brakes on an unaffordable new
health entitlement, and other new spending initiatives. If the President decides not to legitimately restrain spending,
taxpayers should prepare for historic levels of debt and devastating tax increases.
Retribution is less than 1 year away!
Email - March 3, 2010
Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.
U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
Do you feel SCREWED?
Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes?
NO WAY.
Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.
Why should they care about you? You never did anything about it in the past.
You obviously are too stupid or don't care. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care
about you?
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that
members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security,
that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from
any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to
exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't
seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican,
Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has
come.
Maybe it's time for amend Amendment 28 to the Constitution. 28th Amendment will be as follows:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the
Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that
does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
Jay, What do you think of the recent polls on HCR?
Daniel Morales - March 12, 2010
Moderate Democrats should be running and running fast from HCR and the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. These
far left wingers continue to completely ignore the reality that most Americans don't want this. While one attacks the
Rasmussen polls as being inaccurate, I find several democrat pollsters in the Washington Post agreeing with
Rasmussen.
By democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, dated March 12, 2010 - Washington Post
"As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled
to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in
course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is
crucial to the success of the American enterprise."
In my view, if this health care bill with it's massive tax increases passes or fails, either way, it’s too late for many
Democratics. I believe the sheer arrogance and cram down have really set the stage for a huge swing in November,
and wishing, praying or pretending will not change the outcome. Many Democrats seeing the light are in fear of
alienating their own base, and yet liberal left wingers belonging to that party continue to spew the same rhetoric.
Furthermore, this massive health bill is doomed to fail one way or the other. In section 3403 of the Senate health bill
concerning Medicare as an example, it says the law can't be changed or repealed in the future. This of course is un-
constitutional and shows that left wingers who drafted this bill think its legislation is set in stone. Wrong! The
people have always had the right to elect a new Congress to change or even repeal a bill from a previous
administration. Since Health care policies and services won't become effective until 2014 (if the bill passes), a
repeal and/or changes can easily be made.
Take a look at this on the abortion issue:
Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing.
“I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position
says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments
they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the
Democratic party.”
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore
it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up.
Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is
life we’re talking about.”
If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their
own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office.” They don’t
even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”
So the question is Henry Cuellar going to vote yes which would mean he's fine with the government paying for
abortions?
The polls are trying to tell these guys that the Constitution defines and limits to their powers, yet they STILL don't
get it. We now have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, and now they want to
take over health care and the student loan business. A revolt is coming..... comment
Jay, Why do you believe that health care reform legislation is a lie and will harm the country?
One-Sixth of the US Economy is threatened with a takeover by the Federal Government on the erroneous rationale
that 30 million people in the country are being denied access to adequate health care.
This is an absolute lie.
Access to health care providers and medicine of the best health care system in the world is already universal and
available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, illegal’s have figured that one out. If tomorrow the
government bought health insurance policies for everyone who doesn't have one, that wouldn't make access to
health care services any more available than they already are.
Marketing 101 - the law of supply and demand dictates that if 30 million or more new customers are added to a
market place (the demand), and there is no proportional increase in the number of service providers (the supply),
then prices will go up as service availability goes down, which means the whole system gets worse for everyone.
The real issue is that there are those who wish to argue that health care is a basic human right and therefore a
justification for a massive intrusive government entitlement program. I believe health care is not an inalienable
right, it's a basic human necessity, just like food, clothing, and shelter. All of these basic human necessities are
bought and sold everyday in the free market in the context of goods and services.
The reality is that there are those who can pay and those who can’t. For those who can't afford the basic human
necessities of living, then those needs become the basis of voluntary charity and aid. Involuntary charity via
taxation is called "Welfare". So whether it's private charity or a government welfare program that helps people buy
something they otherwise couldn't afford but need, that's fine; just recognize that's the issue.
To further my argument that this is all about government intrusion and control over your life, I ask you to consider
one mathematical fact: 30 million new insurance policies at a average cost $5,000 ea. per year totals $150 billion
dollars per year, which is a fraction of the real price tag of ObamaCare.
The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget
November 20, 2009
“measuring all the costs of the bill for the first ten years after provisions begin (2014 through 2023), it would cost
around $2.5 trillion. This is significantly higher than the $848 billion normally advertised as the cost of the coverage
between 2010 and 2019. It is important to note that, in calculating gross costs, this analysis pulls apart a number of
line items which are generally netted out.”
ObamaCare is simply a lie, whose only practical impact for generations to come will be a increased welfare
dependency on government, increased taxes, greater government intrusion, control over people's personal lives
and privacy, and reduced availability of health care providers as more of them will be driven out; all of which
translates to higher costs and less services.
Not to worry.... If socialized health care is forced through Congress and signed into law, I believe after the
November slaughter of Democrats, this bill will be repealed.
I'm hearing more and more talk of a third party - interesting! comment
Central American Conference at TAMIU was nothing more than a Pipe Dream...
Paul Cavazos - February 24, 2010
The “Dog and Pony” show is over. The kennel and the stall are empty and the last notes of “The Impossible Dream”
have waned. (LMT Feb. 27 Ed workshop facilitates city trade)
Now we who are in the business consider it prudent to separate fact from fiction and the wheat from the chaff.
I am afraid that there was more fiction and chaff than what was expected
It is worth noting that Nuevo Laredo was not invited to participate or be taken into account; after all, if the promise
becomes a reality they would be the main beneficiaries.
They would provide transportation on the longest segment of the trip, plus customs clearance twice plus the
necessary warehousing and storage plus incidental fuel sales etc., plus the fact that the cheapest and fastest way
to come or send freight to Laredo via air is using the Nuevo Laredo airport.
The sessions, according to the Mayor, allowed people from Latin America to understand Laredo.
This they did. They found out it is too far from the source and too far from the important markets.
The subject of motor carrier transportation was not even discussed.
The Guatemalan delegate noticed that we don’t have a USDA-approved facility to handle large volumes of
perishables.
That is located in McAllen.
McAllen has the largest produce terminal outside of the Bronx, N. Y. Buyers no longer have to go visit the growers
in Southern Mexico.
They go to McAllen to inspect and buy.
They found out that no international airline, except Federal Express, has a freight handling terminal at the airport.
The airport has buildings but not the specialized equipment and loading devices required to assemble, load and
unload freighters.
According to Mayor Salinas, “many of the products that will soon be shipped by Central American companies will
be arriving via the ports of Veracruz and Lazaro Cardenas, and some directly via air to the Laredo airport.”
That is nothing but a pipe dream.
There is no service between Mexican ports in the Gulf of Mexico and Central American ports on the Caribbean, and
no steamship company is interested in investing in that route.
There is no business and no need for the service.
There is no service between the port of Lazaro Cardenas and Central American ports on the Pacific.
According to the Panamanian delegate, freight from the Pacific ports is destined for the California and Northwest
markets.
It would be absurd to send goods from Panama to Lazaro Cardenas, to Laredo and from Laredo to the West coast.
The cost would be astronomical
It would have been very helpful if the delegates as well as our Mayor had studied a little geography and considered
the distances between certain points, they would have saved a lot of time and money.
One of the delegates thought of sending the goods to Laredo and from Laredo to Europe.
This was said even though they know — or should know — that there are several vessels a day sailing from
Panama to Europe.
These are not “rust buckets” but vessels doing 35 knots.
By the time the goods reach Laredo, the goods on those vessels would be on the European markets.
The mayor was seen in the media, signing agreements with three countries.
What happened to the other countries the city visited?
Didn’t they go along with the charade?
Breakdown of President Barack Obama’s 2011 Budget, and What are Conservative Solutions to Such
Spending Sprees?
Wall Street Journal - March 4, 2010
Last year, President Obama swept into office on a promise to confront tough choices, and then he released a
budget proposing the largest debt-and-spending spree in American history. With Washington having committed
itself to more government than its taxpayers could realistically afford, basic fiscal responsibility demands that the
President scale back his expensive proposals. Instead, this year's budget is even more fiscally irresponsible.
Obama’s Budget
• Spending. The 2011 budget is $3.8 trillion dollars. Before the recession, the federal government spent about
$24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020, in effect producing
an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government. In fact, of the few areas where spending
was cut, two were with important defense and education programs.
• Taxes. President Obama's 2011 budget calls for $2 trillion in higher taxes over 10 years after subtracting a
relatively insignificant $154 billion in tax cuts. This would be a $17,000 tax increase for every American household
during that span. Though no economic theory justifies raising taxes during a recession, President Obama would
impose nearly $1 trillion in tax hikes for 3.2 million upper-income families and small businesses. He would eliminate
tax breaks for charitable giving and the mortgage interest deduction for millions of Americans. In addition, the
energy taxes known as a cap-and-trade system are expected to pull in about $800 billion primarily from American
businesses and families over the next decade.
• Deficits. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending. After
harshly criticizing President Bush for running $3.3 trillion in deficits over eight years, President Obama's budget
would run $7.6 trillion in deficits over what would be his eight years in the Oval Office, with 2010 earning a $1.6
trillion deficit—$143 billion higher than the recession-driven 2009 deficit. Moreover, President Obama would run up
more debt over his eight years than all other Presidents in American history, from George Washington through
George W. Bush, combined.
A Better Way
If President Obama is serious about reining in spending and closing budget deficits, he needs to propose real and
specific spending cuts. To validate his professed claims of budget stewardship and fiscal discipline Obama should
repeal the economic stimulus and TARP, bring Social Security and Medicare into long-term sustainability, and bring
discretionary spending back to pre-recession levels. It would also mean putting the brakes on an unaffordable new
health entitlement, and other new spending initiatives. If the President decides not to legitimately restrain spending,
taxpayers should prepare for historic levels of debt and devastating tax increases.
Retribution is less than 1 year away!
Email - March 3, 2010
Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.
U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
Do you feel SCREWED?
Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes?
NO WAY.
Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.
Why should they care about you? You never did anything about it in the past.
You obviously are too stupid or don't care. Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care
about you?
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that
members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security,
that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from
any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to
exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't
seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican,
Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has
come.
Maybe it's time for amend Amendment 28 to the Constitution. 28th Amendment will be as follows:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the
Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that
does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
Jay's Posts
Campaign 2010 is a no-holds-barred public access show... It's your show - your rules!