Removal Of Disabilities Of Minority Texas Forms: Fill & Download for Free

Not all minority owned enterprises are equal. For federal contracting access 8A certification is somewhat of the gold standard. There volume of business thresholds that distinguish the degree(s) of eligible incentives that apply.My preferred (platinum standard) minority owner prospect is a 62+ y/o with sufficient equity in their home to get a sizable reverse mortgage loan—-to fund their prospective equity in the operation of the candidate enterprise.Next to that [dream] minority co-owner is the world re-known {internationally respected} disabled honorably discharged military veteran who’s G.I. Bill of Rights entitle them to zero down payment funding to buy real estate, or business co-ownerhip—-featuring upto 2 day streamlined loan processing [by some socially responsible funding processors].Alas, in the eat what you kill ‘ewyk’ more modest reality of everyday moguldom, there is the universally beloved & philosophically pragmatic generic homeless, eager co-entreprenuerial (silver standard) potential person at a shelter near you. That caliber minority is frequently a rapper that was (before you showed up) unable to get a recording deal. You should be balanced in your determining how to access their drug addiction and criminal background(s). The 51% ownership of the enterprise that you’ll be availing to them is only worth what will eventually be earned (through it’s future operations).Most homeless business partner prospects bring a handful of HUD Section 8 & Section 3 tax incentives. Just imagine the pr value, political soft capital your choice to position an indigent within the much heralded seat of upper management to your enterprise. A very high percentage of qualifying military veterans & reverse mortgage eligible prospects will instinctively desire to align portions of their resources with your new crew—-if only out of jealousy toward your less than daily bathed homeless, smiling {dentist needing} 51% partner.I recently got introduced to a 29 y/o homeless [aspiring actor/lousy rapper] that’d had an eye beaten out during a mugging over 4 years ago. His medical bills to date are around $ 30K. Fascinatingly, a hurricane destroyed his apartment making him homeless for 4 years while he’s been represented by 2 different lawyers. Neither lawyer felt that it was a prudent suggestion that the one eyed client apply for Sec. 8 to obtain a housing grant voucher; nor that any employer(s), or potential customers be induced to optimize the victim as their means of getting Sec. 3 tax incentives for hiring him, or purchasing from him. The 2 lawyers did get a $ 70K lost wages portion of settlement earmarked for the victim; along with a $ 900 to $ 1,200 a month permanent allowance combined package in place. According to those 2 lawyers none of those payments will start for another 2 or 3 months.A somewhat journalistic mindset multi-millionaire advertising agency owner client of mine did be-friend this victim & bring his plight to my attention. He in fact gave the aspiring actor the stage name ‘ONE EYED GUY’. BTW to replace the lost eye requires another $ 30K—-beyond what he owes the hospitals that’ve performed the medical treatments that he’s had no means of paying for already. So if you want to know how to start a minority-owned venture i advocate marketing the disabled’s value in forming your slate of eligible minorities. Another client of mine elected to assist a California based social services intervention start-up that’s tracking 8,000 active ongoing domestic violence matters—-around the world. The U.S. domestic abuse victims bring assorted levels of minority eligibility status qualities (with them). A good percentage of those domestic violence & sexual abuse victims bring the rights to spousal homes—-with serious equity in them.The first domestic abuse case matter that my client [a former military policeman] was asked to assist with surrounded a women living California that’d been beaten so bad for so long by her Texas based ex-husband that she had limited motor skills & was psychologically so traumatized that she could only work under very narrow arrangements. She’d been convinced to sign over the family house (in Texas) and vehicle, as part of an elaborate scheme by her ex and his father to get her removed from being able to seek primary custody of her children. Her uncontested more or less featured her surrendering her stake in the home & car—-resulting in her being vehicleless and tacitly homeless in Ca. We determined that she had about $ 90K of equity in their spousal home that she’s signed away.As a best of all worlds scenario if you were to combine the ex-military policeman’s G.I. Bill veterans’ benefits package with the Orlando, FL based ONE EYED GUY’s Sec. 8/Sec. 3 eligibilities & his $ 70K back pay settlement with the generic restorative justice options a conservative ballpark of the joined resources’ value(s) approach $ 900L+. Consolidating that combination’s options within the single role of 51% a minority business partner to your budding empire falls under the category of ‘do not try this at home’ —-featured drivers are highly skilled professionals….yada, yada, yada.However, lawyers with adequate backgrounds in certain types of high stakes negotiations and adr (alternative dispute resolutions) experts routinely enact the above asset re-opositioning and restorative justice procedures. The social services intervention 501(3)[3] is btw marketing the approach of recruiting $ 5K to re-open the divorce proceedings on the grounds that the ex-husband & his father concocted a provable terror campaign featuring claiming that the ex-wife had physically attacked and severely beaten her ex-husband—-which generated a remarkably efficient court order of protection in the ex-husband’s favor. Although the charges against the ex-wife were baseless the order of protection wound up being kept in effect long enough for the (then soon to be) ex-husband to stack myriad cards in the divorce negotiation deck against the wife in their court proceedings. She was so confused and broke that she literally thought that by signing over their single jointly owned vehicle, along with her stake in their home that it would assure her of adequate visitation & custody rights to their children.Her legal team actually induced her to think that by consenting to live in California with no car, unemployed that she’d get an alimony arrangement superior than if she forced the home to be sold—-if for no other purpose than to enable her to have around $ 45K to create a formal life for herself. In her case she used a court appointed lawyer that was introduced to her to confront the erroneous fabricated charges of her having beat up the guy that’d been beating her routinely for more than a decade. Ergo picking a homeless as one of your minority co-investors will assuredly bring challenges along with it. However in this case some rather impressive celebrities have opted to support the cause of this domestic abuse victim/homeless divorcee.We have a DC scenario with a former homeless mother of 2 that SunTrust happens to be backing her return to life normalcy. The bank loaned & donated money to a landlord operating a re-entry program which chose to feature the mother as a pr spokesmodel of their success—-at being a stabilizing force in the community. Again from the soft capital, political capital standpoint they’ll be few people in your church that won’t prove interested in supporting that type of co-investor selection. We believe that the DC mother’s internal support package from just her artistic following is hovering at around $ 400K to $ 450K {one week into my identifying that HUD, as well as VA inducements would be accompanying the activities that this particular ex-homeless is going to be employed in). Those efforts are being incubated around her account(s) being sold real estate as one of the uses of her in place Sec. 8 grant award. She happens to be black with impaired health—-presenting additional qualifiers as a minority—-as defined by HUD and the VA.

When are we going to regulate guns in United States?This question has been asked many times. Before getting into the answer I have to say I find it rather odd that pro gun-control answers usually have the comments disabled. I do not silence educated arguments simply because I don’t agree with them, so I will not disable the comments. I am more than happy to have a civil, rational discussion on any point. Being so entrenched in intolerant beliefs as to stop thinking objectively is a huge problem when it comes to this topic.I wrote this for a similar question: Fred Lead's answer to Is America's gun debate pointless when you consider that yet another massacre is followed by calls for more guns not less?The gun debate is not pointless, but when people and politicians are not educated it isn’t actually a debate. There are many things we need to focus on to lessen violence and killings, but it ends up being a fight over rights instead of a discussion about difficult topics. Because the topic shifts from things like poverty and the failed war on drugs to what guns the law-abiding should be able to have there is no positive movement.Too many people I talk to or correspond with have no idea what the current gun laws are and suggest policies that already exist or are simply not possible. For example, one individual recently suggested placing a $500 fine on straw purchasers, people that buy guns for a restricted individual that can’t pass a background check, in order to take away the profit from illegally selling guns, especially selling guns across state lines. In reality straw purchasers have committed a felony that carries a 10 year jail sentence and fines up to $250,000, not to mention losing their rights and most likely their job. In addition, transferring a gun across state lines for profit without being an FFL dealer is at least another two felonies. That adds up to way more than $500.Another popular argument is to allow the CDC to continue gun research, since “the NRA” forced the CDC to stop researching guns. The truth is the CDC is not restricted from conducting research on guns. The CDC is forbidden from using public funds to push biased policy. When the CDC was conducting “research” in the 1990’s it was found through a Congressional investigation to falsify data, omit data that didn’t match it’s policy, and even push conclusions that were the exact opposite of the data in the studies. Creating policy and making up the data, or simply lying, to match is not science. The restriction on CDC research of guns was lifted in 2013 by the Obama Administration with a $10 million grant. The findings did not support gun-control and were not distributed widely, which may be a reason most people think the CDC still can’t conduct any gun research.This Amendment did not preclude the CDC from doing research on gun safety, just that it defined the lines between the research of gun safety related incidents and the perceived advocation for control of those guns.In 2013, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to research gun violence.”Dickey Amendment (1996) - WikipediaWe still see the “CDC logic” in the gun debate today,All too often, they witnessed that “assumptions are presented as fact:”… that there is a causal association between gun ownership and risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence.” They concluded that “…incestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce a bias into scientific publications…Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled.” Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research FundingWhy we can't trust the CDC with gun researchWhy Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetCDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama - Guns & AmmoThen there’s irresponsibly ignorant legislation, like the New York Safe Ammunition and Firearm Enforcement Act, or “SAFE” act that limited all magazines to seven rounds or less when most firearms, including pistols, do not have magazines that are seven rounds or less. Major manufacturers stated they would not create a product just to meet New York’s law, leaving New York gun owners with no options to use the firearms they already legally purchased. This requires either a willingness to remain ignorant or a willful malice, which is up for debate, to create such a law.What did law enforcement think of the SAFE act?We enforce the law, I want to make that clear," said Putnam County Sheriff Don Smith. "However, I think it's also important to say the SAFE Act was one of those laws that they wanted it bad, and I think they got it bad. The law is something that we took exception with when it was passed in the dead of night because a lot of the provisions in the law did not make sense. A year after SAFE Act, is New York safer?But it must be worth it to know this act has made New York safer, right? Unfortunately, it hasn’t made the state any safer.Obviously, it’s desirable and worth some degree of government action to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm. New York’s SAFE Act was supposed to do that, but by Mr. Schneiderman’s measure, it hasn’t worked. If the out-of-state gun percentage had spiked since the new restrictions took effect, that might indicate criminals were being foiled here and turning more often to other states, but that doesn’t seem to have happened. SAFE Act seems to fail at keeping guns from criminalsBut the idea that less ammunition capacity in a magazine means more safety, right? Not according to some simple tests.The SAFE act didn’t just target magazines, it also mandated a rifle registry be created.Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Massive noncompliance with SAFE ActHow can it be that an act with the word “enforcement” in it couldn’t be enforced? Because of the Constitution. Without breaching the Fourth Amendment there is no way to enforce this law (even if you knew where the firearms were), especially the promise citizens would only load seven rounds in their grandfathered ten-round magazines.So why do we put up with guns in the hands of private citizens? In the US in a year there are more than 30,000 deaths involving a gun. Two-thirds are suicide and 80% of homicides are gang-related. We can’t say for sure taking away the guns would have completely avoided a suicide, and in the case of gang violence illegal guns are used, usually against other gangs that have illegal guns. If you want to only look at evenly distributed risk, that is the relatively random chance of being impacted by gun violence, there are about 2,000 homicides unrelated to gang activity (including justified homicides and justified police shootings). That’s about a 0.00006% chance in a year to be impacted by gun violence and about a 0.000007% chance in a year to be impacted by a mass shooting.In that same year there are between 55,000 and 3,000,000 cases of legal self-defense with a gun. The Department of Justice estimates there are at least 55,000 cases, while the CDC in 2013 estimated between 500,000 to 3,000,000 cases. If guns are used for self-defense so often why isn’t the death toll higher? In the vast majority of cases a shot is not even fired, once the firearm is presented the criminal flees, the police are called, and the police can apprehend the suspect. Why does the estimate of self-defense vary so wildly? Part of the reason is there are no easy ways to quantify this the way reporting is designed now. When a crime is called in there is no place on the report to officially tally if the victim was armed, and since there are no shots, injuries, or deaths there isn’t an official record kept of a gun used in self-defense.By the lowest estimate guns are used about twice as much to avoid death, rape, and grave bodily harm than to kill. Using the CDC’s lowest estimate we come to guns being used in legal self-defense 80 times more than to kill. Those crimes don’t just disappear if you get rid of legal guns, just like the suicides and gang violence wouldn’t end. In all likelihood it wouldn’t end mass shootings either, unless you get rid of all guns and even then there are other means, the weapon matters little when a crazed individual has complete control over a defenseless group of people. So the only real gain we have from removing guns from the hands of private citizens are 55,000–3,000,000 more cases of incredibly violent crime.The National Academies PressDefensive gun use - WikipediaOf course, there is always the claim that politicians are controlled by the NRA and that the NRA is controlled by it’s financial backers, the gun industry. In reality the NRA receives a small minority of it’s total donations from gun manufacturers, the vast majority comes from individual memberships. The NRA has a maximum of 7% of all US gun owners as members, but other estimates may put it as low as 4%. It only makes sense the other 93–96% would vote in favor of their rights. An estimated one-third of Americans own guns, and more people that do not own guns support the rights. More politicians have constituents that are pro-gun than anti-gun. Look at the 2016 election map by county and you will see anti-gun populations share a small pool of politicians. The NRA doesn’t control the politicians, the people do, as the system was designed.Membership dues totaling $175,577,863 contributed the largest percentage (50.5%) of the NRA’s total revenue of $347,968,789 in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available. The next biggest sources were $96.4 million from private contributions and grants (27.7%), $27.61 million from unrelated business income (7.9%), and $24.5 million from advertising income (7%) http://www.amarkfoundation.org/nra-who-funds-the-nra-11-13-15.pdfAnti-gun billionaires actually have spent more in political contributions and advertising in a single state than the NRA’s total annual political contributions nationwide. If it were about the money all the proposed gun control would be signed and sealed already,“Michael Bloomberg offering to give money to Republicans hypothetically makes a clear case," added Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the think tank New America and the author of several books on money in politics (and a Vox contributor). "If the theory is that they’re selling their votes to the highest bidder, it has to be something else." The NRA is a powerful political force — but not because of its moneyFor more on why what most people think of as gun control isn’t possible and why it wouldn’t help see: Fred Lead's answer to Some friends are saying the recent Texas shooting proves the need for gun control. How can I rebut their claims?

We are a democracy but not a full democracy in my opinion. Because you have to look how far we came with this whole voting thing.1776: Although the Declaration of Independence has just been signed and the United States’ independent status has not yet been recognized by many countries, the right to vote begins in America as a legal privilege almost exclusively available to white, property-owning, Protestant men.1788: With the ratification of the Constitution, all slaves are counted as 3/5’s of a single person on the national census.1790: The Naturalization Act bars all persons of Asian descent from becoming naturalized. Only “free white” immigrants are recognized as eligible for naturalization.1792: New Hampshire becomes the first state to eliminate its property requirements, thereby extending the right to vote to almost all white men.1807: Women lose the right to vote in every state in the US for the next 113 years.1828: Maryland becomes the last state to remove religious restrictions when it passes legislation enfranchising Jews. White men can no longer be denied the right to vote on the basis of their religion.1848: The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo renders the lands now known as Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada US territory. All Mexican persons within these territories are declared US citizens, but simultaneously denied the right to vote by English proficiency, literacy, and property requirements along with violence, intimidation, and racist nativism.1856: North Carolina becomes the last state to eliminate its pr operty requirements. The right to vote is extended to all white men in America.1857: In the landmark case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the US Supreme Court rules that “a black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect.” African Americans are further deprived of the right to citizenship and, by extension, the right to vote.1866: The first Civil Rights Act grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all persons born in the USA.1869-70: The Fifteenth Amendment is passed in Congress and ratified by the states. The right to vote is now legally guaranteed to all male citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.1882: Congress passes the Chinese Exclusion Act, which establishes restrictions and quotas on Chinese immigration while legally excluding Chinese persons from citizenship andvoting.1889-1890: Poll taxes and literacy tests specifically designed to reduce African American voting power are introduced in Southern states for the first time.1890: The Indian Naturalization Act allows Native Americans to acquire citizenship.1896: Louisiana is the first state to implement a grandfather clause in its election policy. No male citizen whose grandparent was deprived of the right to vote may exercise that right himself.1915: The US Supreme Court finds Oklahoma’s grandfather clause unconstitutional in Guinn v. United States.1919-20: The Nineteenth Amendment is adopted by Congress and ratified by the states into law. The right to vote is now guaranteed to all citizens regardless of gender.1922: The US Supreme Court rules that persons of Japanese origin are insufficiently white to qualify for citizenship in Takao Ozawa v. United States.1923: The US Supreme Court declares persons of Indian descent, even “high caste Hindus”, as ineligible for citizenship because they cannot be legally recognized as “white” persons.1924: The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 declares all non-citizen Native Americans born in the USA to be citizens with the right to vote.1937: Georgia’s poll taxes are found constitutional by the US Supreme Court in Breedlove v. Suttles.1943: The Chinese Exclusion Act is repealed, and Chinese persons are now eligible for naturalization.1946: Filipinos receive the right to naturalization after almost 50 years of colonialism.1946: Federal courts find white primary systems in Georgia unconstitutional in King v. Chapman.1948: The last state laws denying Native Americans the right to vote are overturned.1952: The McCarran-Walter Act recognizes the right to citizenship of first-generation Japanese Americans.1957: The Civil Rights Act of 1957 authorizes the US Attorney General to file lawsuits on behalf of African Americans denied the right to vote.1960: The Civil Rights Act of 1960 is passed, making collection of state voter records mandatory and authorizing the Justice Department to investigate and access the voter data and history of all states in order to carry out civil rights litigation.1964: The passage and ratification of the 24th Amendment outlaws poll taxes nationwide.1964: The concept of one person, one vote is upheld by the US Supreme Court as the national standard applying to all legislative bodies in Reynolds v. Sims.1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is passed, making discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or religion in voting, public areas, the workplace, and schools illegal.1965: The Voting Rights Act is signed into law, prohibiting any election practice that denies the right to vote to citizens on the basis of race and forces jurisdictions with histories of voter discrimination to submit any changes to its election laws to the government for federal approval prior to taking effect.1966: The Supreme Court affirms the Voting Rights Act’s constitutionality in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.1970: Temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act are renewed for the next five years.1971: The 26th Amendment sets the national voting age to 18 and over.1974: The Supreme Court rules that states may deny convicted felons the right to vote in Richardson v. Ramirez.1975: The Voting Rights Act’s special provisions are once again extended. New amendments permanently banning literacy tests and mandating assistance to language minority voters are also added.1975: The US Supreme Court finds Texas redistricting in Bexar County unconstitutional due to its enervating effects on minority voting power in White v. Regester.1976: The Supreme Court rules in Beer v. United States that preclearance of election changes deemed unfair to minority voters are in compliance with the Voting Rights Act so long as “retrogressive” changes do not occur.1982: The Voting Rights Act is extended for 25 years.1986: Voting rights for people of color are strengthened by the US Supreme Court’s decision to declare multi-member state legislative districts in North Carolina unconstitutional in the Thomburg v. Gingles case.1990: The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act ensures that election workers and polling sites provide a variety of services designed to ensure the possibility of persons with disabilities to vote.1992: The language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act are extended for the next 15 years.1993: The National Voter Registration Act requires states to permit mail-in registration, and make registration services available at DMVs, unemployment offices, and other state agencies.1995: The Supreme Court rules that race may not be the “predominant factor” in redistricting in Miller v. Johnson.2002: The Help America Vote Act creates minimal standards of election administration, provides for provisional ballot voting, and sets aside funds to help states improve outdated voter systems.2004: The Supreme Court found claims of partisan gerrymandering nonjusticiable in Vieth v. Jubelirer.2006: The Voting Rights Act is extended for another 25 years.2009: The Military and Overseas Empowerment Act establishes more efficient means for troops stationed overseas and expatriates to request and receive absentee ballots through the mail or electronically.So we are not perfect we're a long way from it but we also came along waySources: historychannel.com,massvote.com