National Politics & News

I love Gov. Christie's honesty and believe that agree/disagree with his policies, that this is the road back to the public's trust in government.  Enjoy the video.
Yours In Truth  ;-)  Shelly


Thought the Federal Government was protecting the Tax Payers from more bailouts?  Thought the new Economic Reform bill was to protect the Tax Payers from more bailouts?  How about the little publicized removal of any threshold for Tax Payer responsibility to bailout Fannie & Freddie backed mortgage failures?  Didn't know?  Neither do many tax payers.  It's time to vote them out; repeal and replace all of the executive orders of the last 2 to 100 years of progressive damage done to protect the private citizens and the states from overt regulation and federal chicanery.  Bring back fiscal sanity and the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the numerous State Constitutions designed to create a level of freedom and liberty never known before.

Motley Fool Stock Advisor

 

Dirty Government Tricks... Heartbreaking Tales of Corporate Chicanery... and the Biggest Investor Myth of a Generation...
Because these are THE 3 MOST SERIOUS THREATS TO YOUR WEALTH in 2010 and beyond. And it's time we fight back!
August 7, 2010
Dear Fellow Investor,
Talk about a low-down, bag-over-the-head, kick-to-the-groin tactic...
On Christmas Eve 2009, while Americans were smack in the middle of holiday festivities... wrapping presents, spending time with family and friends, and toasting the season...
Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae corporate headquarters.
The U.S. Treasury quietly issued a press release. In hopes nobody would notice. And few did at that moment.
Here's the story. In September 2008, when the government first stepped in and bailed out America's two largest mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress put a $200 billion limit on federal assistance...
Last year, the Treasury doubled the amount to $400 billion. And then on Christmas Eve 2009 -- they lifted the limit altogether!

The Wall Street Journal dubbed it "the Christmas Eve taxpayer massacre."

Of course, "bailout" and "federal assistance" are just government-speak for reaching into taxpayers' wallets and giving our money to failing and flawed companies.
You see, we're being forced to buy senior preferred stock from Fannie and Freddie to cover their exponentially mounting losses. And while the government would have us believe these firms are being nursed back to health, the truth, as you'll discover in a second, is more insidious than anyone could've imagined.
Here at The Motley Fool we say enough is enough already! And that's the reason for this email...
We think it's time to again fight back. In fact, that's how The Motley Fool was born... out of a fighting spirit! You may remember how Motley Fool co-founders David and Tom Gardner, and our entire community, fought for financial industry transparency, corporate accountability, and financial reporting...
You may remember how we spearheaded the passage of the SEC's Regulation Full Disclosure in 2000, which provided equal access to corporate information for all investors.
But first, let me tell you the most troubling part about the "Christmas Eve taxpayer massacre"...
As I mentioned, the government would have you believe the mortgage companies you're being forced to invest in (bail out) are being nursed back to health...
Congress
But would you believe these companies are actually
being directed by the government to lose money? It's true.
But would you believe these companies are actually being directed by the government to lose money? It's true.
According to The Wall Street Journal, "The loss cap is being lifted because the government has directed both companies to pursue money-losing strategies by modifying mortgages to prevent foreclosures."
In other words, Fannie and Freddie are now designed to lose money, transferring wealth from taxpayers like you and me to overextended borrowers and flawed businesses.
In other words still -- we're being forced (by the government) to invest in companies directed (by the government) to lose money. Can there be anything worse?
Well, it's been a while since I have posted anything on the national side of politics. For the past couple of weeks I have received bits and pieces of commentary on the appointment of Elana Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. What can a private citizen think when the Senate sits idly by and barely kick-up a fuss over this woman's nomination? Elana Kagan may not have a judicial record to judge her by, but 'everything' else in her life points to a complete disregard for the United States Constitution. Her responses to the light weight questioning she's received thus far show that she is a liar on top of a phony, with regard to 'the Rule of Law'. If you doubt my word, do your homework and look into the many ways that Elana Kagan is a huge step towards the nullification of the Constitution, by route of the Supreme Court and the seated responsibilities of the Judiciary.  If you read down through the too few comments on this post, you will see a commentator deny that Elana Kagan made Constitutional Law and elective, rather than a requirement to attain their law degree.  But, if you read further down, they substantiate their post with this link:  Click here for CNS article regarding the same accusations.
Yours in Truth ;-) Shelly
Harvard Law Dean Kagan Replaced Constitution Studies With International Law

Written by Joe Wolverton, II   
Tuesday, 01 June 2010 16:00
On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court's 2009–2010 term. A significant entry in the catalog of Ms. Kagan’s remarkable achievements is her deanship of the ├╝ber-prestigious Harvard Law School. In 2003, she was named, as the school’s first female dean, to succeed Robert C. Clark, who had held that post for over a decade. While manning the helm at Harvard Law, she attracted attention of alumni and observers for steering the ship away from the tried and true “case-law method” of studying the law.
A central plank in Kagan’s revolutionary platform is the abandonment of the requirement that students at Harvard Law School study constitutional law. The course’s place in the curriculum was replaced by classes examining the laws of other nations and international law.
In fact, according to the requirements for receiving a J.D. as listed on the Harvard Law School website, the study of our republic’s founding document is nowhere to be found.
In 2006, after the changes were proposed by Kagan and approved by the faculty committee evaluating the suggestions, the school published a news release to explain the changes and Kagan offered the following justification for the de-emphasis of constitutional law studies:
From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe — global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems. Accordingly, the Law School will develop three foundation courses, each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law.
The press release identifies the three new required courses Kagan introduced to take precedence over constitutional law. The first covers comparative international law and was designed to “introduce students to the sources, institutions and procedures emerging over time through the bilateral and multilateral arrangements among states as well as the participation of nongovernmental actors.”
To read the full article click here.

Union-Run Pensions Are In Dire Straits; Time For A Bailout?


By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 06/02/2010 07:24 PM ET

“The challenges facing multi-employer plans are real and we need to face them head-on because quite frankly they are simply too big to ignore... View Enlarged Image
A quiet battle is brewing over what might be the nation's next big bailout: private union-run multi-employer pension plans. A 2009 Moody's study found the plans underfunded by $165 billion, but Washington is conflicted over what — if anything — to do about it.
Democrats such as Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania are pushing legislation to have the federal government step in and pay the benefits for some troubled plans.
But the administration, already reeling from the backlash over earlier bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry, rebuffed that idea in a Senate hearing last week.
Republicans are calling for an overhaul of the federal pension insurance system, one that won't increase the taxpayer burden.
'Too Big To Ignore'
All agree that something must be done. The funds in question are rapidly facing insolvency, meaning that thousands of retirees could see their benefits slashed.
"The challenges facing multiemployer plans are real and we need to face them head-on because quite frankly they are simply too big to ignore," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
As the name implies, several employers pay into the plans. Should one employer leave the plan for whatever reason, remaining employers are liable for the workers that business brought into the plan .
Most such plans were created via collective bargaining and are run by unions. They argue that the plans are a better deal for some, like construction workers, who may work for several employers.
This lets them stay in the same pension plan while changing jobs. It also makes the worker beholden to the union for his retirement.
Those plans are underfunded, as the Moody's study shows. The multiemployer programs tend to be in old-line industries — manufacturing, construction, transportation — that suffered huge job losses and company failures.
All Fall Down
Bankruptcies of some employers in a plan weigh on healthy companies because they become liable for paying out more benefits. And fewer people are employed in those plans today.
Businesses would like to get out of paying for failed rivals' pension obligations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other business groups back the legislation.
The conflicts over what to do with ailing plans were revealed at a hearing last week Harkin held on Casey's Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act.
The legislation would allow workers in a plan whose employers have gone bankrupt to be spun off — "partitioned," in the bill's language.
Those partitioned plans would become the responsibility of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal entity that insures private plans.
Under current law, the PBGC payout for multiemployer plans that become bankrupt is capped at $12,800 a year per beneficiary. Under Casey's bill, the PBGC would be liable for up to $21,000.
There is a companion House bill sponsored by Reps. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio.
Casey argued that his bill "will help companies stay in business, prevent job loss and protect pensions for hardworking Americans."
He estimated the cost at $8 billion and repeatedly asserted, "This is not a union bailout."
The top federal official at the hearing, Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis Borzi, had a different take.
"The proposal ultimately makes the taxpayers liable for paying the benefits of the partitioned plan. Currently, no other benefit obligations assumed by PBGC are subject to the full faith and credit of the U.S. government," Borzi said.
She was there representing Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who chairs the PBGC board.
While expressing sympathy for the hardship facing workers caught in failing plans, Borzi did not endorse the bill. Instead she said: "We believe several elements of this particular proposal deserve further consideration."
She pointed out that the bill forces the PBGC to fund any plan that a multiemployer plan partitions off.
"This framework leaves PBGC without power to make its own findings about the plan's financial condition or need for partition," Borzi said. Also, the multiemployer plan, not the PBGC, would continue to run the partitioned plan.
Borzi's cool reaction was surprising since her boss, Secretary Solis, is a strong backer of unions. But the wariness follows a series of unpopular federal bailouts — including the pro-union GM and Chrysler rescues — and massive spending that have eroded President Obama's approval ratings.
Also, PBGC already has a $21 billion deficit of its own. Taking on more liability would strain its finances further.
Critics of organized labor warn that, if enacted, Casey's bill could result in further — and more expensive — bailouts because unions could make even more exorbitant demands during collective bargaining.
"The union now knows that should they actually create a situation where it forces an employer out of business or into bankruptcy, well, now there is a fund that will take care of those union pensioners," Brett McMahon, a representative of Associated Builders & Contractors, told reporters last week.
The committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, called for an overhaul of the multiemployer system.
"We should not do it piecemeal with just a very small handful of companies," he said. "Otherwise, the system will end up a house of cards."
The PBGC says it insures about 1,500 multiemployer plans that cover about 10.4 million workers and retirees. Such programs encompass only 5% of PBGC-insured plans overall, but nearly a quarter of all the affected people.
PBGC rates 30% of multiemployer plans in "critical" condition, meaning they have less than 65% of funds necessary to meet present and future obligations. An additional 16% are "endangered," meaning they have 65%-80% of the necessary funds.
This is a rapid deterioration from 2008, when PBGC rated just 7% critical and 10% endangered.

I received this in an email from a close friend.  Although I don't agree with everything within this email, I do believe that it is a huge step in the right direction for the healing of the United States of America!
Yours in Truth  ;-)  Shelly


"WE MUST EXPECT AND DEMAND MORE FROM OUR POLITICIANS.  NO MORE "BUSINESS AS USUAL." 

Please... in the Fall 2010 elections.... ONLY VOTE FOR FISCAL CONSERVATIVES... elephants or donkeys. 

The pols MUST commence now to move into a new paradigm of BALANCED LEADERSHIP.  There is no place in our Great Nation for biased party gloating and finger-pointing.  "We-the-People" deserve better. 
Please, only vote for candidates who extol a set of solid virtues;
1.  Candidates Who Pledge to listen intently to "We-the-People," and work hard on our LOCAL top-ten priorities.  Each candidate MUST use her/his personal money to fund a professional unbiased district poll every 12 months, and adhere to that mandate.
2.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote to reduce the National Debt by five percent per year until payoff.

3.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote against any legislation that, in effect, increases the National Debt.

4.  Candidates Who Pledge to aggressively shrink the size of ALL governments by ten percent per year for the next five years.  The usual attrition will make this happen, with intense supervision.  We must learn to innovate, with improved people-skills to deliver better customer satisfaction with less bureaucrats.  Technology is NOT the sole answer.
5.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for an aggressive campaign to reduce unemployment to near zero by year-2013;

 
a.  Pledge to vote to complete the anti-personnel fence on our southern border.  The U.S. SeaBees will do that job cost-effectively, completed on or before 30 Sep 2012.

 
b.  Pledge to vote to station the U.S. Marines on our southern border for seven years, totally replacing the DHS-CBP folks, who are outgunned.

 
c.  Pledge to vote for drastic penalties (incarceration) for crooked employers who entice, hire and employ foreign nationals on U.S. soil.

 
d.  Pledge to prosecute bureaucrats who unlawfully give benefits funded by U.S. tax dollars to illegal aliens and their kids.

 
e.  Pledge to aggressively tighten-up all U.S. Port of Entry stations to eliminate fraudulent entry (mostly fraudulent documents) by any and all who try.

 
f.  ELIMINATE SO-CALLED 'VISA OVERSTAYS."  In particular, pledge to implement near-real-time tracking system to "watch" all persons who enter the U.S. on a temporary visa... and implement strong enforcement to make darn sure that all depart the U.S. before their visa expires.  WHY ?  We gain four million persons per year because we do not enforce the provisions.  Most of these "illegal aliens" are employed by errant U.S. employers.  Yes, really.
6.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for a new interpretation of the "anchor babies" rules.  NO MORE AUTOMATIC U.S. CITIZENSHIP FOR BABIES BORN ON U.S. SOIL TO FOREIGN NATIONALS.  There is no Constitutional Convention required... just a formal re-interpretation by the U.S. Congress to overrule the outrageous "opinion" by an errant Socialist U.S. District Court Judge.
7.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for a new U.S. National Law to encourage states to shift their K-12 education to "Vouchers Only."  Every student is issued a voucher which enables her/him to attend any school in the state that is not already filled up.  The net result is healthy competition.  The bad schools will fade away.  The good  schools will replicate.  The student lifetime-success will grow.  The costs to taxpayers will go down.  The non-value-added "stuff" will disappear.
8.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for a new U.S. National Law which mandates "English Immersion" in ALL K-12 schools located on U.S. soil, to include all U.S. military bases everywhere.  The same law will encourage all students to master three additional NEW languages by the time they graduate 12th grade... so the U.S. can better compete in world-wide markets.  Parents who desire to help their children maintain former language skillS can do that at home.
9.  Candidates Who Pledge to work hard BEFORE election to co-author three key documents;
  a.  "U.S. Vision-2030," written in the first person singular, by a mythical person who describes what they see as they look around this great Republic in the year 2030.
  b.  "U.S. Strategic Plan 2030,"  What we must achieve to empower the Vision.
  c.  "U.S. Tactical Plans 2011-2015... the first steps toward achieving the Strategic Plan.
10.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for mandatory paid "Three Years National Service" for all children of age 18-21.  JOBS ARE ALL PAID THE SAME SALARY, WHICH INCLUDES "COUPONS" FOR FUTURE COLLEGE EDUCATION BENEFITS.  Our youth will learn the virtues and rewards of hard work... the antithesis of the "Entitlement Culture."  This mandatory service may be working in the renewed "Conservation Corps," U.S. military services, farms, ranches, hospitals, etc.  The new skills acquired will be used to re-build the U.S. social infrastructure.
11.  Candidates Who Pledge to vote for a revitalized continuation of the Eisenhower-era interstate highway construction and upkeep system.  Likewise, pledge to outlaw new toll-roads.  The U.S. highway system is a key part of our free Republic.  User taxes, collected as a surcharge on fuels, should be the only funding necessary.



Obama: U.S. nat’l security strategy to be based on education, clean energy, rights for terrorists
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
05/23/10 8:32 PM EDT
President Barack Obama congratulates graduates of the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., Saturday, May 22, 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
President Obama’s speech at West Point Saturday is the most sweeping statement yet of his plan to create a national security policy emphasizing education, clean energy, green jobs, anti-climate change measures, the granting of full American constitutional rights to accused terrorists, and “engagement” with America’s enemies.
Obama is set to release his first formal full-scale national security strategy in the coming week. At West Point, he told the Class of 2010 that the United States must “see the horizon” beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To reach that horizon, he explained, “we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership” and “build the sources of America’s strength and influence.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-us-natl-security-strategy-to-be-based-on-education-clean-energy-rights-for-terrorists-94707549.html#ixzz0oxL7E9pV
Ariz. gov.: Send Guard choppers from other states
May 21 03:49 PM US/Eastern
Comments (256)Email to a friend Share on Facebook Tweet this

PHOENIX (AP) - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is asking President Barack Obama to reallocate National Guard helicopters from other states to help Arizona secure its border with Mexico.
Brewer made the request in a letter to Obama dated Thursday and released Friday.
She says Arizona only has four OH-58 Kiowa helicopters available for border missions because some choppers are deployed overseas and others are reserved for training missions.
Brewer requests that additional helicopters be freed up from training missions or taken from other states and assigned to the southwestern border.
The governor acknowledges her request may be unpopular with other governors, but she says she believes there are legitimate national interests in sending more aircraft to Arizona
.
Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona
FOXNews.com
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
AP
FILE: John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This article was updated at 4:36 p.m. on May 21. See editor's note at the bottom of the article.
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.
"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.
The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.
Immigrant rights' supporters around the country took to the streets on May 1 to protest Arizona's new immigration law which seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. Take a look at the massive protests.
The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.
In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.
"That review will inform the government's actions going forward," DHS spokesman Matt Chandler told Fox News on Friday.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."
Morton, according to a biography posted on ICE's website, began his federal service in 1994 and has held numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including as a trial attorney and special assistant to the general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and as counsel to the deputy attorney general.
Border apprehensions in Arizona, where roughly 500,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to be living, are up 6 percent since October, according to federal statistics. Roughly 6.5 million residents live in Arizona.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, said it appeared the Obama administration is "nullifying existing law" and suggested Morton may not be the right person for his post if he fails to enforce federal immigration law.
"If he feels he cannot enforce the law, he shouldn't have the job," Sessions told Fox News. "That makes him, in my view, not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office."
Sessions said the U.S. government has "systematically failed" to enforce federal immigration law and claimed Morton's statement is an indication that federal officials do not plan on working with Arizona authorities regarding its controversial law.
"They're telegraphing to every ICE agency in America that they really don't intend on cooperating with Arizona," Sessions said. "The federal government should step up and do it. It's their responsibility."
To read the full story click here.

How Wall Street Chaos May Lift Economic Reform
So, the chaos on Wall Street trading, Thursday, May 6th, 2010 may elevate the chances that the ‘new’ financial regulatory reform will help to easily pass through Congress and the Senate. What part of this doesn’t pass the smell test for you? Is there any investigation into what brought on the 1000 pt. drop and 700 pt rise; all within 4 minutes? Yours in Truth ;-) Shelly

Updated: 1 day 13 hours ago
Joseph Schuman Senior Correspondent
ANALYSIS
(May 6) -- Will today's wild ride on Wall Street bolster efforts in Washington to tighten government harnesses on the finance industry?
For anyone watching the stock market, the sudden swing of more than 1,000 points in the Dow Jones industrial average must have opened the door to worries that investors were seeing a return of the volatility of recent years and the financial crises that cascaded from market to market, wiping out retirement funds and household wealth and millions of jobs across the world.
The stock index reached a high of 10,879.76 today before plummeting to 9,869.62, only to end the trading session at 10,520.32. The net damage was a drop of 347.80 points, or 3.2 percent.
The immediate suspect was renewed fears that Greece's financial problems and those of Portugal, Spain and other ailing economies could affect the rest of Europe and then the world. It wasn't clear if technically mishandled trades on one or more stock exchanges triggered or exacerbated the sell-off, but the computer-controlled trading now endemic to the markets took over, contributing to a dive that left traders scrambling and gave reports on business-news cable channel CNBC the feel of an action-adventure film.
Even as officials at the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq and elsewhere work into the night to figure out what happened, and an inquiry was opened at the Securities and Exchange Commission, debate continued in the Senate over the proposed overhaul of financial regulation.
And that's where today's vertiginous movement in stock prices could have the most lasting effect.
Senators were debating and voting on amendments to the 1,400-plus-page legislation that would put new restraints and oversight on Wall Street with the aim of avoiding future financial crises. The White House and congressional Democrats have been gathering momentum on the issue over the past month, thanks to persistent public anger over mistakes made by the banking and finance industries and the SEC charges filed against Goldman Sachs.
The Democrats' latest victory came today, when two Republicans joined them to defeat 61-38 a Republican bid to weaken a consumer protection agency that would be created by the bill. That came after President Barack Obama issued a statement accusing Republicans of siding with Wall Street lobbyists to undermine true reform, one of his most partisan comments on the issue.
"I want to continue to work with Democrats and Republicans because protecting the American people should not be a partisan issue," he said. "But we must work together in good faith."
Another important shift came when key Senate Democrats agreed to change a measure that would give Congress -- through the Government Accountability Office -- more oversight into how the Federal Reserve sets interest rates. The White House and the Fed had aggressively campaigned against such a change, saying it could politicize rate setting and thus risk fanning inflation. The measure's main sponsor, independent Bernie Sanders, had backing from the Democratic leadership, but agreed to a compromise that stops short of ending the 32-year-old shielding of Fed monetary policy from Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been pushing the debate into the night with an eye toward a vote as early as Friday.
The administration, meanwhile, was already tying the regulatory reform to the financial crisis in another forum.
Testifying before the congressionally created Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the crisis would have been "less severe" if the government had had better tools and more authority to handle it. The government must help itself protect against the "unknowable," he said.
"Against the uncertain, against the likelihood, the possibility that the next shock could be beyond our imagination, beyond our experience and could be very damaging," Geithner added. "I think that's the central lesson we try to take -- I try to take -- from the crisis."
Democrats can now point to yet another shock -- even if there is little and perhaps no tangible link between today's market tumult and problems targeted by the legislation at play in the Senate, other than the economic uncertainty lawmakers hope to reduce through new rules and watchdogs.
Obama is scheduled to speak Friday morning to address the monthly employment report, due out at 8:30 a.m. He has already said stronger financial regulation and a stronger financial system are key to improving the jobs market and the economy as a whole.
He is now almost certain to include stock market volatility in his remarks, as today's plunge and what happens next threaten to overshadow even employment as the biggest economic story of the week.

When is it Enough Money?
The executive Administration is very concerned about 'how much' money people make from the fruits of their own labor. POTUS actually said; "When is it enough money?" Well a video is worth a thousand words, so I have provided Glenn Beck's research in relationship to what some of us might call "the non-producers of the world" and the hypocrisy of their words. Yours in Truth ;-) Shelly


Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona