Also I’m sure that just about everyone has seen the foot stomping event which happened before a Paul/Conway debate.  Here is the video that has went viral on the internet.  (And with media with liberal leanings)

There is no doubt that Tim Profitt, a Rand Paul supporter  stomped on Lauren Valle.  I have no issue if Ms. Valle wants to file assault charges against Mr. Profitt.  He should have never physically assaulted her.  This is clearly a violation of Ms. Valle’s property rights.  (The idea being her body is her property.)

Ms. Valle was interviewed by Keith Olbermann which he threw her softball questions about the event.  Valle claimed during the interview that she is with Moveon.org (Hardly a centrist organization.)  She claimed during the interview that this was a stunt just to get a picture of her by Rand Paul with a particular sign.

She also mentioned how there were others of her group in the crowd ready to take the picture when she made her move.

BUT…

Here is what she did…

(note- The woman in the yellow circle is Ms. Valle.)

This video clearly shows Ms. Valle rushing to Rand Paul’s car and shoves her sign across the plane of the open window.  It isn’t clear if the sign made contact with Dr. Paul or not. (Personally,  I lean that it didn’t as he avoided it.)

As I stated, Ms. Valle’s property rights was infringed by Mr. Profitt.  However, what about the fact that Ms. Valle violated Dr. Paul’s property rights?  She rushed his vehicle and thrust a sign into the open window into the vehicle.  I would say this is violation of Dr. Paul’s property rights.

During the Olbermann interview, she claimed she meant no harm towards Dr. Paul.   She just wanted a picture with her sign.  However, thrusting a sign into the open window doesn’t strike me as innocent behavior.

I would have no issue if she yelled something at him.  She does have freedom of speech.  Or turned close to the car with the sign display for the picture she was trying to get.  (However, I could see where Dr. Paul’s security might have an issue with this.) However, She doesn’t have the right to thrust a sign into an open window and nearly hitting another person.  This case, the vehicle is Dr. Paul’s property and Ms. Valle should have respected his rights.

I’m not surprised that Keith Olbermann made no mention of this during his light interview.  I would wager if the situation was reversed and a Tea Party member did this to Jack Conway, Olbermann would have said this would have been justified because the looney might have had a gun.

Funny how that works…

The Tea Party has been on guard against liberal infiltrators which has happened to the Rand Paul campaign already.  I can see why the crowd reacted like they did.  I’m not saying it is justified.  Just saying I can understand the reaction.

I do think the initial contact as some pulled her away from the vehicle was justified.  She might had ill intentions.  However, once people realized she wasn’t a threat, she should have been released.

Also, I’m troubled by the fact that Ms. Valle was wearing a disguise.  She wore a red hoodie up over her head while also wearing a blond wig.  Does this sound like an individual who is proudly demonstrating her First Amendment Rights or some one who has something or an agenda to hide?  A situation, where she admits, they had cameras ready to capture images. (How convenient?)

I’m not suggesting that she planned on getting stomped.  I do, however believe she was planning to stir the pot a bit.  This was a debate where Conway supporters were attending as well.  However, she places herself in the middle of Rand Paul supporters?

This is like an obnoxious Dallas Cowboy fan walking in the Washington Redskin’s stadium for a playoff game.  Or the Philadelphia Eagles’ stadium.

In my own opinion, I do think they were hoping to catch “Something” to put Rand Paul in a bad light.

I’m not denying that foot stomping Mr. Profitt crossed a line, but it is clear that Ms. Valle did as well.  Both of them didn’t respect property rights of an another individual.  However if Ms. Valle used common sense and respected Dr. Paul’s property rights, she wouldn’t have been stomped by Mr. Profitt.

Interesting how bad situations could be avoided if people would just respect each other’s property rights.

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• Who is paying your politician?

Related items

• Looking at the Tea Leaves
• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?

Share on Facebook

This girl flipped out and went into a rant about how she wasn’t going to go because Hooters degrades woman.  The rant continued  with her points also against strip clubs and prostitution.  How these institutions shouldn’t exist.

Time had passed and this liberal girl got upset again because some news about the abortion issue.  (Obviously, she was pro-choice.)  I set her up in a trap and the conversation went something like this:

Me: So ultimately it is up to a woman if she wants to have an abortion?

LG: Yes

Me: Therefore, her body is her own property?

LG:  Yes

Me: So she is the one who ultimately decides who she wants to have sex with as well?

LG: Yes

Me: On her own terms?  No one can determine that including the government?

LG: Correct!

Me: So if a woman has ultimate control over her body, and with whom she decides to share it with, and also on her terms therefore: if she wants to have sex with an individual for the exchange of money that is okay?

She gave me a glare which basically suggested to me that she would love to see bodily harm done to me.

Anyway, I continued, “I guess that would also apply working in strips clubs or even as a waitress at Hooters.”

She stormed out the room.

The reason why I bring up this old story is because sometimes we may have certain beliefs pertaining to our rights, but on some issues we fall into the hypocrisy trap.

I will never suggest that prostitution is proper.  However as a person that respects property rights, I can’t see where the government has the authority to make it illegal. If a woman decides to have sex with another individual for either personal pleasure or for an exchange of money, how are her individual rights being violated?

This case about the Mosque in New York is along the same lines.   Majority of Americans oppose this being built, but there really isn’t an argument the government can make to stop it.  Property rights and the First Amendment protects those who want to build this Mosque.

I was dismayed when I watched a YouTube video from FOX discussing this issue.  They had a liberal political science professor going up against a conservative radio talk show host.  The professor argued for the Mosque to be built while the radio host held the opposing point of view.  I got annoyed that neither of them really mentioned the Constitutionality of the issue.

Last weekend, This Week on ABC showed a poll that a majority of Americans didn’t like this Mosque, BUT a majority of Americans also understood they had the right to build it.  The latter rarely being mentioned in the media as well.

Again like prostitution, this becomes a property rights issue.  The owners of the land wants to build a Mosque there.  It is their right.  Would there be this outcry if a Christian Church, a Jewish Synagogue, or even a Hindu Temple was going to be built there?

I seriously doubt it.  It is Unconstitutional to allow one group to build a place of worship on their land while denying a different faith.  Either you respect the First Amendment or you don’t.  You respect property rights or you don’t.

This is especially true when dealing with issues that people may feel uncomfortable about such as prostitution or building a Mosque close to Ground Zero.

There is another argument to be made on this issue that I have not seen ANYONE in the media make.  We are not going to win the War on Terror by military might.  We have to demonstrate that our values are correct and just.  A system that Freedom and Liberty still wins when even it is unpopular.

Even after all the pain, anger and frustration of a post 9/11 world, a Mosque can be built close to Ground Zero will send a message world wide that the United States does value Liberty and Freedom.

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Webs Being Weaved
• Gay Marriage and Other Things
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?

Related items

• Foot Stomping
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1

Share on Facebook

What does this mean for Health Care?  The Democrats?  The Republicans? The political climate in general?

Brown’s victory strips the Democrats of  the Super Majority in the senate that they previously enjoyed.  Any changes made to the Senate version of the bill during conference will have to be voted on again.

With Brown’s win, it’s unlikely the bill will pass now.  Democrats talked about getting the House to pass the Senate bill.  However, the Senate bill has many provisions that isn’t popular with House members.  Some have speculated that the votes are not in the House to flat out pass the Senate version.

President Obama suggested that the Health Care Bill might need to be scaled back.  “I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” Obama said on ABC News.

However, the Democrats have fallen into the same trap that the Republicans did during the Bush Administration.  The fact that your party controls Congress and the White House doesn’t mean that Americans totally accept your political aims.

A Little History…

In 2006, Democrats gained control of Congress mostly from a strong anti-war mood in the country.  From 2006 to 2008, Democrats did very little to challenge President Bush’s foreign policies.

In 2008, then Senator Obama separated himself from Senator Clinton for his stance against the Iraq “War.”  Later, he easily defeated Senator McCain for President.  Again, McCain appeared to be a Bush Clone which the country rejected.

Some Democrats made bold claims that this election was a mandate for Democratic Party philosophy.  They never really consider that this wasn’t so much Pro-Democrat/Obama views but more an Anti-Bush mood.

However a few months earlier, Obama and McCain BOTH voted for the Banker Bailout Bill.  Polls showed that this bill was very unpopular with Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. However, Washington with it’s typical elitist attitudes “knew” what was best for us. Yeah right!

A lot of Americans were also upset about how much this bill was rammed quickly through Congress without much review or transparency.  Senator Obama stated then that under his Presidency, he would be more transparent.

However, President Obama has kept a lot of the same  policies towards banks that President Bush did.  (Not to mention his economic team has the same Goldman Sachs ties that Bush’s’ people had.  More about Timmy-Gate later)

(To be fair as I type this, President Obama is on the TV talking about his new plans to regulate the Financial Industry, but I’m not holding my breath.  These are the same people who donated the most to his campaign.)

The stimulus bill was also pushed through the Democratic controlled government.  The bill was popular among Democrats and Keynesians.  However, the bill didn’t garner much support from Republicans and Independents.

Last year, the House rammed through Cap and Trade on the last day before Fourth of July break.  This bill was only popular among Democratic Voters.  Again, no real transparency.

The Health Care Bill again being rammed through without much popular support among the American People particularly among the Independent voters. Senator Reid playing deal maker behind the scenes trying to stir up support.  Some of the backdoor deals only upsets the populace more.  (The Nebraska exception being an example which even embarrassed citizens of Nebraska as well.)

Another problem, polls show that people are more concerned about the economy and jobs.  The Democrats just spent a year focusing on Health Care and still may fail passing it even with majority.  (I would suggest if some version of Health Care still passes will not be liked by any group.)  So they used all this political capital on Health Care instead of focusing on the economy.

President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, but for what?  His campaign promised to bring our boys home quickly, but turned in the same “two” or “three” year promise that Bush continued to make.  Obama added more troops to Afghanistan.  Sent drone attacks into Pakistan, and now making a lot of noise about Yemen.  Wow, something that some Republicans can actually support Obama, but again unpopular with Democrats and Independents.

SO how does Scott Brown’s victory tie into this???

I think even in one of the most liberal states, Massachusetts would elect a Republican is a statement, but what is that statement???  We hate Democrats?  I don’t think so.  We support the Republican agenda??   Folks, this is Massachusetts for crying out loud.

Take another look at the examples above of “A Little History…”

Massachusetts does show how the Independents are upset.  For the longest time, people claimed to be independent when they were upset with the party they originally belonged.  However when push comes to shove, they would still vote for their old party.

However, the Independents are no longer loyal to anyone.  They are a fickle lot now.  In 2006, they were upset about the wars so they elected the Democrats.  They were unhappy with Bush in 2008 and elected Obama.  Do they support the Obama agenda since his election?  Massachusetts said no.

President Obama won the independent vote, but with his policies he has quickly lost that support.

The Republicans would be best serve also not to get cocky from this victory as a public mandate from the people.  Even if they win big later this year in November.  To both major parties, hear my warning…

Independents are not loyal to anyone.

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Open Email to the Southern Poverty Law Center
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Gay Marriage and Other Things

Related items

• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Gay Marriage and Other Things
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?

Share on Facebook

What concerns me is:  I’m seeing an element from the Left that I feel is just as bad as the Neo-Cons are from the Right.  These Neo-Libs are just as obnoxious and closed minded as their counterparts on the Right.   During the Bush years, if you spoke out against President Bush,  the Iraq War, Patriot Acts (Hardly, what a true Patriot would support), the War Commissions Act, Gitmo and various other things: you must be UnAmerican! Unpatriotic, or even worse…A Terrorist!

I guess I’m a terrorist then.

The Neo-Cons were effective (sadly) in pushing this belief system out.  Now the Neo-Libs are doing the same thing with this picture of the Joker.

Their claim is:  This picture is RACIST!

What the hell?

How can one justify that claim?

However, these are the same people that had no issue with a similar picture of President Bush wearing the same styled makeup on the cover of Vanity Fair.

The Joker is a psycho nut on a power trip.  I can see resemblance with Bush.   What about Obama?

He has expanded the war in Afghanistan.  He has not repealed the Patriot Acts or the War Commissions Act.  He promised last March that he would close Gitmo within a year.  In April 2010, let’s see if he keeps that promise.  We will be out of Iraq by 2011.  I’m not holding my breath.  The Government took over the GM.  The House passed Cap and Trade in a way that was very similar to the Banker Bailout Bill from last September.  Something President Obama campaigned against during the election after the Banker Bailout was approved.  His policies towards Wall Street thus far have been very similar to his predecessor.

If one wants to suggest the Bush picture as the Joker is justified, one could argue that Obama’s is as well.

Okay, if you don’t like the picture… If you think the picture is unfair criticism…  If you think it is off base…

I would have no issue with anyone from the Left making a case for any of these points.  However calling it racist????

Is all the criticism from the Right towards President Obama racially based?  With the Neo-Libs, you would think so.

As I surf the web checking out various political forums, I have seen discussions about various topics and eventually a Neo-Lib will step in and call those arguing against President Obama policies racists.  I have also seen various reports that Conservative Blacks are being called “Uncle Tom’s.”

Earlier in the year, Janeane Garofalo said on Keith Olbermann’s show, “It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”

I will not deny that there are racist idiots who can’t stand the fact that our President is a black man.  However, I doubt everyone that has attended Tea Party events are all racists as Janeane Garofalo claims.

Presidents will always be criticized. Remember the head masks of Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton?  So if one makes a mask of Obama, are they going to be a racist?

I can’t say with a 100 percent absolute certainly that the creator of the Obama as Joker picture isn’t a racist. However, I do believe the Neo-Libs who are making such claims have no evidence to support their statements.

Perhaps, we all, both Left and Right are seeing too much in the picture.  Maybe, the artist really thinks Obama is just a joker.  Who knows?

Anyone who has heard the podcast knows I’m not a Bush or Obama supporter.  Well, I guess I have to live with the fact that to the Neo-Cons that I’m a terrorist, and to the Neo-Libs, I’m a racist.

What will I do now?

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Show 28:Libertarianism vs. Socialism
• Ragman’s Rants – Got Change?
• Show 26: Cap and Trade
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?
• The Left Fell into the Climate Morass by Lew Rockwell

Related items

• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Gay Marriage and Other Things
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?

Share on Facebook

This first video, Senator Sanders (I-VT) goes off on him about how transparent the Federal Reserve is.

This second one, Rep. John Duncan(R-TN) asks The Dark Lord of Sith Bernanke what would happen if HR 1207 were to passed.  Basically, Little Ben says that our economy would collapse.

When you put these two videos together, Bernanke is saying that we are more than willing to work with Congress and the people, but only how we deem too.  I loved his comment if the GAO audited the Fed, it could mean that Congress would start dictating monetary policy.  I think someone need to point out to Little Ben that Article I-Section 8 of the Constitution already gives Congress that authority.  Senator Sanders did a great job about asking him about who received these funds from the Federal Reserve.

Everyone knows that when the Fed increases the money supply, inflation rises.  However, the inflation increase is not an overnight reaction.  It does take time for prices to rise to the new money supply level.  The banks (among others) receives these funds first and make their purchases with the new money WITHOUT the inflation increase.  The Inflation is not felt until the money has worked its way into the system.  TRANSLATION-  When the money finally works into the hands of the people, inflation has kicked in while the fat cats who first received these funds are immune to it. So when the fat cats receive the money, it has a higher value.  Once we get our hands on it, the money is worth less.  The Federal Reserve policies insure this.

Seriously, can we allow the Federal Reserve to keep acting in secret?  We know that they discuss policies with other Central Banks.  Why should we know about these discussions?  Also, why can’t we get a list of the major stockholders of the Federal Reserve?  (A Private Bank with private shareholders)Is there any other company that isn’t subjected to an audit?  (Either by the SEC or IRS)  So why shouldn’t the GAO audit them.  It is our money they are playing with!

Please, call your Representative and tell them to support HR 1207.

Lambo

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• A View From the Fence Show 25: Extremism and Extremist
• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• A View From the Fence Show 22: Open discussion and catching up

Related items

• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Gay Marriage and Other Things
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?

Share on Facebook

Miracles never cease.

Savana Redding, a 13 year-old girl, was stripped searched for drugs.  What was the drug?  Cocaine?  Pot?  Heroin?  Crack? Ecstasy? LSD?  If you said, “None of the above” reward yourself with your favorite beverage next time you are out and about.

At Arizona’s Safford Middle School, the MALE vice principal,  Kerry (I’m a perverted idiot) Wilson told Miss Redding to remove her clothes and shake her bra and underwear for the dreaded contraband, Ibuprofen.  Yes, Folks!  Ibuprofen!  We must protect our teens from the evil Ibuprofen epidemic!

Why the stripped search?

Because one of her classmates was found with the evil Ibuprofen and told officials that she received the pills from Savana.  I could understand searching the girl’s locker.  I could understand searching her book bag.  A strip search for Ibuprofen?  I also wonder why the hell the Vice Principal spent so much effort and energy into this?  (Perhaps, I don’t want too!)  For Ibuprofen?

I have really wondered about school’s policy about OTC medications.  I know here in Texas where we had an honor student suspended for a week, because she forgot she left a bottle of Midol in her book bag.  Again, do these idiots have better things to do?  Guess not, hence them being idiots!

Did Mr. (I’m an perverted idiot-said twice for reinforcement) Wilson inform the parents of the strip search?  If he felt a stripped search was necessary, why didn’t he call for a female school official to do it?  (Because he is a perverted idiot?-Third time for even more reinforcement.)

I really have to wonder by the state of our public schools where a male vice principal thinks he has the right to strip search a 13 year-old girl without notifying the parents for the evil drug Ibuprofen.  I would also have to wonder about it if he suspected something else like cocaine or what not.

The only negative about this ruling…   The school officials can’t be sued.  If I was Ms. Redding’s parents, I would be furious.  I think they should be allowed to sue the school for having denying them and their daughter’s  Fourth Amendment Rights.

Oh!  By the way…  The Lone Moron who ruled in favor of Safford Middle School…    Clarence Thomas.

Lambo

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Gay Marriage and Other Things

Related items

• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Gay Marriage and Other Things
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?

Share on Facebook

For Immediate Release
June 11, 2009

Audit the Fed Bill Reaches Crucial Benchmark

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, has reached and surpassed the level of 218 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, which means it is now cosponsored by a majority of the members.

The 218th cosponsor was Dennis Kucinich (OH-10), and the bill has since received its 222nd cosponsor.

“The tremendous grass-roots and bipartisan support in Congress for HR 1207 is an indicator of how mainstream America is fed up with Fed secrecy,” said Congressman Paul. “I look forward to this issue receiving greater public exposure.”

Hearings on Federal Reserve transparency are expected within the next month, as part of the Financial Services Committee’s series of hearings on regulatory reform.

We need to keep the pressure on.  “Some” members will try to cut the teeth of the bill out.  The Federal Reserve also has hired a “lobbyist” to help with their image on Capital Hill.  Also, two Republicans have crawled out from under the rocks from Dr. Paul’s district to challenge him in the upcoming Republican Primary next year.

I’m sure the Federal Reserve and the other Wall Street Bankers will do their best to kill this bill in committee and in the Senate.  If the Fed is audited, I’m sure the billions (trillions?) of dollars that Wall Street has stolen from us since last September will quickly dry up.

Seriously, only Bernie Madoff is the only person of note who has been indicted for all the money woes on Wall Street?  I believe there will be more indictments if HR 1207 becomes law. Perhaps some CEOs of Major Banks?  The current and former Fed Chairmen?

The fight has only begun.

Forward and onward!

No Retreat and No Surrender!

Lambo

Related items

• Looking at the Tea Leaves
• Foot Stomping
• Who is paying your politician?
• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• Webs Being Weaved

Share on Facebook

Lambo

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Mosques and Prostitution: Issues of Private Property?
• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker

Related items

• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• CNN’s Coverage: Fair?

Share on Facebook

I am going to be critical of CNN’s reporting, but before I do.  I can already hear the liberals pointing out Fox News.  Fair and Balanced?  Yeah right!  I am not going to defend Fox’s reporting either.  It is pretty self-evident that they do have a conservative bias.  I would go so far to say that they are Neo-Con biased.

Now we have established that Fox News is biased toward the Conservative Point of View, I will say again that CNN has a Liberal Bias.  There are liberals in the world who don’t see this as there are conservatives that don’t see the bias with Fox.

Now to CNN..

CNN reported on the Tea Party that was held in Chicago.  The CNN reporter described the event as a right winged event.  To a certain extent, I can’t dispute that.  However, the way the event was portrayed by CNN as a group of right wing nuts.  The reporter really did not focus on the issues behind this movement.

After the report was broadcasted to CNN, the reporter got a tongue lashing by one of the participants of the event for not reporting the event fairly.

You decided…  Fair Coverage?

I have to give credit and thanks to Founding Bloggers for the video.

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker

Related items

• What Does Scott Brown’s win mean?
• Rising Tides: Part 1-The Joker
• Bernanke On Fire, Where’s the gasoline?
• Wow, The Supreme Court Ruled 8-1
• Gay Marriage and Other Things

Share on Facebook

So why is it that the federal government, in this time of economic downturn,  continue to spend like a drunken sailor when clearly their tax revenues are down?  Shouldn’t they be finding ways to cut costs, scale back, tighten the belt?  For grins, lets say I am the federal government and I have just lost 20% of my income.  Instead of cutting back and living within the remaining 80%,  I decide to spend 30% more on credit and hope that my 20% revenue comes back.  At best I’ve lost 10% and at worst I’m now 50% more in debt.  Either way you look at it, this is a lose lose solution.

Just think about California,  the state budget is heavily in the red because of down tax revenues.  The state is working to cut costs and live within their means.  They have to do this because they do not have the option of just printing more money.   Our federal government is printing us into oblivion.

If things are as bad as Mr Obama says,  shouldn’t he be bringing home the troops….stopping all aid to other countries…..cut grants…..and definitely cutting unnecessary government services?

This stimulus or should I say steal-from-us will do nothing for the economy just as the last one did nothing.  This is just our government destroying the value of our currency and taking an unchecked run at the printing presses for their own gains.

Wake up America before it is too late!

People who looked at this item also looked at…

• Show 35: Multi Topic Show

Related items

• Ragman’s Rants – Got Change?
• Take Your Money Back

Share on Facebook