Online solutions help you to manage your record administration along with raise the efficiency of the workflows. Stick to the fast guide to do VA 21-0788, steer clear of blunders along with furnish it in a timely manner:

How to complete any VA 21-0788 online:

  1. On the site with all the document, click on Begin immediately along with complete for the editor.
  2. Use your indications to submit established track record areas.
  3. Add your own info and speak to data.
  4. Make sure that you enter correct details and numbers throughout suitable areas.
  5. Very carefully confirm the content of the form as well as grammar along with punctuational.
  6. Navigate to Support area when you have questions or perhaps handle our Assistance team.
  7. Place an electronic digital unique in your VA 21-0788 by using Sign Device.
  8. After the form is fully gone, media Completed.
  9. Deliver the particular prepared document by way of electronic mail or facsimile, art print it out or perhaps reduce the gadget.

PDF editor permits you to help make changes to your VA 21-0788 from the internet connected gadget, personalize it based on your requirements, indicator this in electronic format and also disperse differently.

FAQ

Which mantras do you chant daily?
I chant the Hare Krishna Mantra.The mantra is -Hare Krishna Hare KrishnaKrishna Krishna Hare HareHare Rama Hare RamaRama Rama Hare HareAlso,know as the Mahamantra (the great mantra to free your mind from all negative energy).The mantra consists of only 3 words(‘Hare‡ indicating energy of god or Srimati Radharani, ‘Krishna‡ and ‘Rama‡ is god himself who is the source of all-pleasure).So, as you can see it is not only very simple but at the same time very easy and most effective as you can see scientifically proved -I will share the a personal experience of someone who tried with the Hare Krishna mantra -So,here goes the personal experience -“ I was riding in a van full of devotees returning from downtown Denver, where we’d been chanting all day. The devotees were each reciting the Hare Krishna mantra individually on prayer beads, some softly, some more loudly, some in a monotone, others in a sing-song way. I was also chanting on the beads that had been issued to me. At a certain point during the ride, the cumulative sound of mantra recitation welled up into a kind of sweet, shimmering wave of sound, which in my imagination seemed to be pouring out of some mysterious realm of beauty and profundity. Awash in the sound of chanting, I began to feel a wave of bliss rise up in me, a tangible feeling of extreme happiness and lightness, all burdens lifted, all knots untied, all things made good. The feeling didn’t result from any particular thought or pattern of reflection, from any process of intellectual synthesis or resolution.It was simply a rich, delicious, sublime, subjective feeling of bliss, ecstasy ‡ an unexpected, indescribable sensation of mental clarity and peace. That sensation was so delectable, so uniquely wonderful, and such a gift to a mind in deep conflict, that I consciously said to myself (I remember this quite clearly): “If by chanting Hare Krishna and practicing Krishna Consciousness I might come to a point one day where I’ll feel what I’m feeling now all the time, then I’m ready to do whatever is required. I want that sweet, pure, clear, lovely feeling so badly; I’ll do anything to get there. If this particular feeling, this rich, dense, sublime emotion, this intimation of perfect wholeness and harmony is what this practice leads to, I will give my best shot”Thanks.Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!!
How might have the Civil War played out if the South had the amount of supplies that the North had?
Not as much as most people think or historians usually state.The shortages of resources in the south was a constant headache for the Confederate government and a drain on Confederate morale, but, up until the last winter of the war, not a crippling handicap. If you follow the history of the war in detail, you can see it’s affects from battle to battle and event to event, but since the Confederacy was on the defensive most of the time, they were able to keep their armies equipped and fed and functional right through the fall of 1864. If they had had more industrial cities, or had been able to get more supplies and weapons through the Union blockade, they would have been a harder foe to beat and the Federal forces would have had to work harder to conquer Southern territory. That was the North’s greatest problem: conquering and occupying a vast country the size of Western Europe with a dispersed population and no key cities or provinces that could be taken to make opposition impossible.The far more serious handicap for the Confederacy was their disadvantage in manpower. They mobilized an impressively large share of their white male population into their armies, and made use of hundreds of thousand of black slaves to build up their military and civilian infrastructure. However, their supply of volunteers ran out far sooner than that of the North, and they had to resort to conscription much earlier. Southern conscripts fought well, and the Confederate government adequately equipped them, but there were never enough of them anywhere to hold a line that protected all the Confederacy’s outposts on its sea and land frontiers.
What are the arguments for the electoral college, explained, do not include arguments against the electoral college?
Q: What are the arguments for the electoral college, explained, not the argument against arguments against the electoral college?The US is a federation of individual sovereign States. One of the objectives of the Electoral College system was to have the States, not Congress, decide who serves as President. Article II, Section 1, reads:2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The 23rd Amendment gave additional Electors to Washington DC ("The District constituting the seat of government of the United States") equal to the number of Electors they'd have if it were a State. That is currently 3 Electors, but could be more. The Amendment stipulates that they shall never have less than the least populous State. So, if it were to happen that House Apportionment ended up with no State having less than 2 Representatives (and thus 4 Electors), then DC would have 4 Electors as well.There was, as I understand it, a concern that a system like in the UK, where the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, would dilute the Separation of Powers between those two branches of government (in that the President would serve at the will of Congress and thus would be subordinate to that body).There was also a desire to address the risk of "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" from adversely influencing the election process. As Federalist 68 put it:They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.So, why not a popular vote? Undue influence of more populous States over the interests of less populous States. The system actually favors larger States in that they have more Electors than smaller States (California, for example, has 55 Electoral votes whereas Wyoming only has 3). The 12 most populous States, if they were to band together, could select the President (the last time I did this exercise, they had 281 votes between them).The Electoral map, based on recent voting patterns, favors Democrats. Of those 12 States, 4 are reliably blue (CA, WA, NY, IL), and 4 are usually so (MI, OH, PA, VA). There are only 2 reliably red States (TX, GA), and the remaining 2 tend to swing (FL, NC).Yet, Clinton lost to Trump and Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College one way or another. That begs the question. Why? If the Electoral map skews in the Democrat's favor, how did they end up losing the White House?Because Clinton failed to reach out to States in the rust belt. She took them for granted as her "blue wall," and barely campaigned there (she skipped Wisconsin altogether). Trump, on the other hand, recognized their plight, took it seriously, and promised to do something about it. He was rewarded for it, and it was enough to give him the win.Therein lies the point. Presidential candidates cannot afford to concentrate in large States alone. They have to reach out to the nation as a whole. Smaller States don't have much of a say, but they have enough that they have to be taken seriously.I wonder. If people who argue so vigorously for a popular vote would be willing to split their votes within their States according to how their citizens voted? For example, if the Democrat wins 64% of the vote in California, and the Republican wins 36%, would they be willing to split their Electors, giving the Democrat candidate 35 Electors and the Republican 20? No? I wonder why?The system gives smaller States a slightly improved say in who will be President. It isn't much, and it rarely matters, but it can affect the election. That's the idea.
What can be done in the meantime to mitigate the impact of the Electoral College?
In the “meantime” before what? The only thing that could change the way electoral votes are apportioned would be a Constitutional amendment, and that is simply not very likely. You first have to understand that the states elect Presidents, not “we the people”. The first clue to that understanding is right there in the name of the country ‡ The United States of America ‡ not The United People of America. It may seem like we’re all one big, happy, homogeneous, country, but we’re not. We’re more like a collection of small, somewhat autonomous countries that share some borders with each other, all voluntarily bound together under a Federal system for mutual protection and promotion of the common good. Notice that each state has its own legislature, judiciary, and executive branches. Each state has its own set of laws and regulations. Each state collects taxes that are used within their own borders for schools, roads, parks, etc. And as long as those autonomous states don’t do something that is in conflict with the Constitution or Federal law they are free to do whatever they like.The electoral system (there is no Constitutional reference to anything called “the Electoral College”) was established to give each of these small states a voice in the selection of a chief executive officer and Commander in Chief. With out that balance of electoral votes, a few large population centers in the U.S. would determine the outcome of every Presidential election. As much as the folks in places like New York City and San Francisco would like to tell us all how we should live our lives, the folks who live in other places are equally entitled to tell them to shove it.
What would happen if the United States government instantly dissolved and each state became a sovereign nation?
Original Question: What would happen if the United States government instantly dissolved and each state became a sovereign nation?Thank you for the A2A, Joel MatthewsStefan Stackhouse nails the only way this could happen “instantly.”But even then it would not happen instantly. No small state is going to vote to dissolve the Union until it has a new plan.But what plan would be better than what we already have?The only way that there will be a split is if some region of the United States is absolutely unwilling to be part of the United States.That region could not fight another civil war—it would lose and it would be occupied—just like last time.So that region would have to resist non-violently—to make itself more of a hassle than it is worth.But even at that, that region will never be granted complete independence. The United States will never allow that region to:conduct independent foreign policymaintain nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponsmaintain a strategic navy or air force. It would be limited to a coast guard and defensive air force.Also that region would have to accept the ongoing presence of US military bases, US interstate highways, strategic rail lines, strategic pipelines, and such.The United States would retain control of airways, strategic waterways, selected airports, and seaports.The United States would still retain authority over oil refineries, major power plants, and of course, nuclear power plants.The United States would retain control of the airwaves.The United States would still exact a defense levy from these states.Basically, this region would be allowed to be semi-autonomous, with much more control over its social and local economic policy purchased by surrendering its seats in Congress including the Senate.I believe when it is put that way, no state is going to accept that deal and will remain in the Union as is.But as Adi Chhabra observes, if the 50 states cannot remain together in a single Union, they also will not be able to live together in peace. Even if we could remain cordial amongst ourselves, foreign powers would conspire to set us at each others‡ throats.Judging by 2021. it would not take much.And at that point, how long would it take for foreign powers to consider invading, lest we recombine into a single empire?We might even see something akin to the division of Germany following World War II—a division of the United States into occupation zones: The Chinese Zone, the Russian Zone, the Euro Zone, and Brazil Zone, and the India Zone.In that case the Chinese would “liberate” Hawaii from the United States and make it an indpendent nation. They would also “liberate” Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.Russia “liberate” Alaska.The Five Powers would repatriate the lands lost in the Mexican war to Mexico. Brazil would “liberate” Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.New York City would become an “Open City” (meaning occupied) foreign troops and security personnel would control the airports and seaports.Americans would have to carry identity papers and could be stopped and detained at any time without cause or warrant. Their cars and homes could be searched without cause or warrant. Similarly, Americans could be arrested without warrant.Foreign soldiers who killed, raped, or stole from American citizens would be tried in their home countries by juries of their own nationals—that is, if they were arrested or investigated at all.Any American caught with a weapon would likely suffer summary execution.Nevertheless there would be a resistance. And Americans would kill foreign troops.And there would be reprisals. Particularly by the Russians and Chinese. They would murder whole towns of men and boys. They would rape the women in front of the men first.The Europeans would protest of course, but feebly. And they would not do anything to actually stop any of it.Of course, eventually, the occupation would become too expensive for even the Russians and Chinese.But after our nation was devastated and about fifty million of us were killed and many more of us grievously psychologically damaged, we would learn that splitting up was a mammothly, insanely bad idea.Or maybe before we were occupied, someone would just launch the nukes, and humanity would die.
If you believe that this page should be taken down, please follow our DMCA take down process here.