Paul Ryan is leaving, he should take his tax plan with him. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE JENNIFER WEXTON.

Tomorrow is Tax Day and Virginians across the district and the state will be filing their taxes for the first time since Paul Ryan’s bad tax plan was signed into law. The new tax laws hurt America by raising the deficit by a staggering $1 trillion (that’s $1,000,000,000,000 -- 12 zeros) but especially hurt Virginia.

Voters in our district claim the state and local tax deduction at a rate much higher than the national average. That means the new caps on SALT deductions will hurt us disproportionately. Despite this, Rep. Comstock enthusiastically and unsurprisingly supported the tax bill.

Paul Ryan is on his way out and we should send this tax plan out with him. It’s time for tax reform that helps Virginians, not hurts us.

Thank you,
Jennifer Wexton

IT'S NOT JUST "GET RICH QUICK " SCHEMES ANYMORE.

  

So, we have a sitting President actively trying to eliminate a Government Program, created and subsidized by Public Funds, that makes Health Care affordable for every American.

            

In its place? Private Corporations selling for profit Health Care Plans that guarantee nothing.

The Result? A possible return to the Days when many Americans could not afford Medical Coverage.

In addition, the use of the PRESIDENTS NAME in advertising that sells and endorses a product created for the Private Sector.
TrumpCare Medicare Replacement 

Compare Health Insurance Plans and Prices for TrumpCare Coverage.

We are here to help you find affordable health insurance coverage. We are a top online source for health insurance and we're here to offer you the most competitive quotes on the market. Are you graduating soon? Self employed? Working without coverage? Retiring soon? Or simply trying to save money? Look no further.

PORTRAITS OF EVIL- WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE EVIL? PART 2.

However, let us ask another question: No matter what the source, Secular or Religious, are there certain common characteristics that are Universal in Nature, WHEN DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF EVIL?

There does seem to be Particular Qualities associated with EVIL, and how it should be Confronted, Prevented, or Punished.

1)  EVIL is Detrimental in Nature, with no positive qualities. 

2)  EVIL should be avoided, for no outcome would be considered desirable, if it is employed as a Tool to affect any Course of Action, or Implement Change.

3)  EVIL Must always be Punished, and never encouraged.

4)  EVIL, even if not Identified by name to describe any Action or State of Being, is often Associated with other Words or Terms.  Sometimes, they are used Interchangeably, where the Definition and Usage Mean practically the same thing. 

( A COMMON PLOY BY CERTAIN GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS, SUCH AS POLITICIANS AND ATTORNEYS.  THE REASON:  USING THE WORD EVIL ITSELF MIGHT BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, SO SOMETHING LESS PROVOCATIVE IS USED.)

Along the Same Lines, EVIL might be used as the Antithesis to other Words or Terms, Creating the Impression that its exact opposite is an example of an ULTIMATE GOOD. 

5)  EVIL= IMMORAL.  NO MORE, NO LESS.

6)  EVIL IS CHAOS AND DISORDER, AND AN ENEMY TO PROGRESS, JUSTICE, AND ALL THAT IS "GOOD."

Much of what you read Above is how EVIL IS DEFINED WHEN WE CONSIDER HOW SOCIETY VIEWS IT AS A CONCEPT TO MAINTAIN ORDER, PREVENT UNDESIRABLE SITUATIONS, AND ALLOW INDIVIDUALS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEIR OWN LIFE CHOICES.

Unfortunately, HOW SOCIETY DEFINES EVIL IS OFTEN LEFT TO THE WHIMS OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO EQUATE THEIR PERSONAL DEFINITION, AS THE ONE THAT BEST SUITS SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

SEE PART 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 2.

QUITE SIMPLY, BEFORE ANY REAL DISCUSSION BEGINS, THE FOLLOWING ARE NECESSARY, AND MUST BE AGREED UPON.

1-  Define the Subject to be Discussed, to the point where both sides agree.

This may seem to be COMMON SENSE, with each side knowing why They are Involved, but it is not. It's far to Easy for One Side, who find that Their Viewpoint is going down to Defeat, to Argue that the Opposition has Misrepresented or Failed to Understand the Position they are Taking.

This Isn't Difficult, unless there are Clear and Understandable Definitions that Distinctly Separate both sides of the Issue, and leave no room for Vague Interpretations about what Constitutes the Opinions being presented.

Vague and Simplistic Definitions are a sign of Intellectual Laziness, and/or a Lack of Commitment or Confidence in the Subject or Topic being Discussed or Debated.

Further, if we have an Unclear Distinction between Similar Terms, (Global Warming and Climate Change are Perfect Examples.), the Confusion to the LAY PERSON MAY MAKE UNDERSTANDING EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT.

If One Side Insists on USING ILL-DEFINED WORDS OR TERMS, AND WILL NOT ADEQUATELY PRESENT THE SUBJECT MANNER IN A CONCISE AND UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER, A DEBATE OR DISCUSSION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ANYONE, EXCEPT THOSE USING DECEPTIVE TACTICS NOT TO TEACH, EXPLAIN, OR JUSTIFY, BUT TO PUSH AN AGENDA THEY CAN'T REASONABLY DEFEND.

Agreeing to Debate or Discuss an ISSUE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE FOOLISH AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.  IT WOULD GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH SIDES ARE READY AND ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT IN A WAY DESIGNED TO FIND REAL ANSWERS AND SOLUTIONS. 

This, Of Course, would not be True. So, if one side DECIDES SCORING POINTS FOR POLITICAL GAIN MEANS DECEIVING AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE OPPOSITION POINT THIS OUT, AND EXPLAIN WHY A DEBATE WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. THEY NEED TO STRESS THE IRRATIONAL AND UNSCIENTIFIC TACTICS THAT WOULD DO NOTHING BUT HARM THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.