Vote Clears Way for Illinois Abortion Notification Law
The AP released a news article stating that the State of Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board has decided not to extend a 90-day grace period put into place in August.
Illinois' law had been passed in 1995 that forced abortionist doctors to provide parents with a 48 hour notice of girls 17 and younger who intended to get abortions. That law, however, was never enforced because of constant court actions to prevent it. Organizations such as The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois intends to ask for a new temporary restraining order to keep the state from enforcing the law.
This is where things start to get a little interesting. You see, as a Libertarian I believe that individual right to privacy is an important natural right and should be observed at all times. However, we are dealing with the murder of an innocent baby for no other reason than the immature and irresponsible nature of a teenager who made a foolish choice.
I think that is why I call myself a Conservative Libertarian because Morals must come into play at some point and we aren't the Wild Wild West and so no baby should suffer such a fate. How about this, lets encourage these teenagers to have the children and put them up for adoption and possible force child support on them to help pay for the baby until it has been adopted by another family. That way our taxes are mitigated and the teenager(s) learn a continious lesson on what they have done.
Now, some of you out there might say something along the lines of, "...if we start charging teenagers money for babies they won't want they will force the abortion upon themselves without the aid of medical professionals, wont they?". I can see that as a legitimate concern for some of you out there but you are forgetting that I'm treating the forced and intentional abortion of a child as MURDER. The punishment for finding out that a teenager forced the abortion would be tried as such in a court of law and so it would highly encourage teens not to perform such an act.
I'd love to hear what all of you have to say about this. Don't be shy, no matter what side of the fence you are on let your comments rip. But I remind you, please use fact-based evidence to backup any statement you might make.
Print This Post
Is Obama Poised To Cede US Sovereignty?
The following video and text references are quite scary and when you stop to think about them you can realize just how possible (likely?) this is and how bad it would be for us if it were to take place. Quick Fact: Did you know that foreign treaties take precedence over our Constitution (that is actually written in the Constitution)? THAT is why it is so scary! Video after the following statement.
The following text was taken directly from the video comments:
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty that is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
A draft of the treaty can be read here:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/docu...
Chuck Norris has an article in WorldNetDaily with a good analysis of the treaty:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE....
There has been considerable debate raised about Monckton's conclusion that the Copenhagen Treaty would cede US sovereignty. His comments appear to be based upon his interpretation of the The Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land. Concerns have been raised in the past that a particularly ambitious treaty may supersede the US Constitution. In the 1950s, a constitutional amendment, known as the Bricker Amendment, was proposed in response to such fears, but it failed to pass. You can read more about the Bricker Amendment in a 1953 Time Magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...,9171,806676-1,00.html
Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused. Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educate the public about the myth of global warming.
UPDATE:
Check-out this story from the 10/29/09 Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...
What do you think about this? Can this really happen!?
Print This Post
We Want To Be Regulated
Efforts in Washington to write a major climate-change law are causing some Bootlegger/Baptist coalitions to fall apart and new ones to emerge. In late September Exelon Corporation, a major electric utility, followed industry partners PG&E and PNM when it resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber opposes the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill, which would sharply limit carbon emissions, raise the cost of power, and in effect impose as much as a 15 percent tax increase on each U.S. household. Exelon, PG&E, and PNM favor the law. They are heavy nuclear-power producers.
In an earlier comment on the fracturing of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), an industry-environmentalist coalition pushing for cap-and-trade carbon emission controls, Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp repeated a commonly held misconception about government regulation when he said: “It’s very unusual for big corporations to raise their hands and say, ‘We want to be regulated for something that we’re not regulated for now.” Exelon, PG&E and PNW apparently make his point.
But as a matter of fact, industry support of regulation is not rare at all; indeed, it is the norm. And in the United States it is as American as apple pie.
A somewhat casual investigation of business history reveals that it was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the special assistance of General Electric president Gerard Swope, that supported passage of President Roosevelt’s 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act. The Act, with its Blue Eagle codes affecting 2.3 million employers, attempted to place all American industry in a price-fixing cartel. But while the Chamber and many large firms supported FDR’s cartel, many firms, including Ford Motor Company, did not.
Going back further, we are reminded by Howard Marvel, writing in the 1977 Journal of Law of Economics, that it was the owners of the newly built water-powered textile plants that supported the English Factory Acts (1802 and on), not the owners of older mills that used far more labor per unit of output. The legislation limited child labor and hours and conditions of work, which raised the costs of labor-intensive producers. The industrialists who joined with other crusaders to support the legislation are remembered as philanthropists.
In 1907 it was the electric utility industry led by Samuel Insull that lobbied for state regulation in the hopes of escaping a less predictable and intractable municipal control. And it was in 1910 that American Telephone and Telegraph Company chairman Theodore Vail successfully called for federal regulation of long-distance telephone just when the Bell patents were expiring and new competition was, as he put it, “skimming the cream” from the market. Even Magna Carta (line 35) specifies a standard width for all cloth sold in the kingdom — all in the name of consumer protection, scholars tell us. The standard happened to be the width of looms operated by the London weavers. The less fortunate Bristol weavers had to break and modify their looms to compete.
A focus on environmental regulation reveals a host of Bootleggers and Baptists who have coalesced, sometimes quietly, to support output restrictions. In hearings before passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control Act, industrialists located along the Ohio River argued for the law. They faced pollution controls imposed by the Ohio River Sanitation Commission and wanted a national level playing field. Only federal regulation would solve their problem, and they supported it. It was the coal interests in Ohio and West Virginia, along with environmentalists, that lobbied for the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments requiring scrubbers on newly built and modified coal-fired electric utilities. As Bruce Ackerman and William Hassler famously noted in their 1981 book, Clean Coal/Dirty Air, the scrubber requirements eliminated the clean-burn advantage of western coal and kept the higher sulfur eastern coal producers happily operating.
Yes, industry support of legislation that imposes restrictions on output is commonplace, but one begins to understand this more fully after careful scrutiny of the lobbying process. It is seldom the case that every firm in an industry supports restrictions. When John Deere petitioned EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to increase the stringency of the air-emission standard on small gasoline engines, it was because Deere had a patent on cleaner engines. When the Chicago meat packers lobbied Congress to pass the 1906 Meat Inspection Act, it was because of markets lost to consumer fear over Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and Argentine beef producers who were invading the U.S. market with lower priced food.
And when nuclear-power producers Exelon, PC&E, PNM, and others lobby for a federal statute that would impose high costs on coal-fired competitors, there should be no question why.
Article taken from Foundation for Economic Education - http://fee.org
URL to article: http://fee.org/articles/regulated/
Print This Post
TIME CRITICAL – We’re In the Fight Of Our Lives
The US House plans to vote on their massive takeover of our healthcare as early as this Friday. Everything we have done up until this point has just been the prelude. We have got to mobilize everyone we know to contact Congress on a daily basis. We are now in the fight of our lives, literally.
I will be contacting my own Representatives today and each day via phone and email for the rest of the week. However, Braley and Harre have made it clear where they stand, and it's not in support of their constituents. We will be focusing the remainder of the week on the Blue Dog Democrats who were elected in conservative districts and are fearful of re-election. They may be our only hope. Our work is cut out for us. Don't give up now. . .or we might as well kiss our beloved America good bye.
Contact your representative today and tell him we reject HR 3962 because:
1) We CANNOT afford this:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation will cost $1.05 trillion over the next ten years and $150-$200 billion annually. This massive expansion in government spending will increase the already bloated size of the federal government by about 5%.
With the federal deficit reaching $1.4 trillion in 2009—an all time high—and unemployment reaching 9.8% in September—a 26 year high—now is not the time to spend money that we simply do not have.
2) Our taxes will go up:
The federal government expects to generate revenue from tax increases that include but are not limited to:
A tax increase of 2.5% of adjusted gross income earned by individuals who do not purchase government-mandated insurance. This tax increase could affect individuals earning as little as $9,350 a year.
The repeal of tax incentives offered to those who purchase medical care with Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA).
A 2.5% excise tax on medical device manufacturers that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
A new tax on insurance policies—expected to raise $2 billion—which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
Vast expansions to the Medicaid program which will undoubtedly add to state and local taxes paid by individuals.
A 5.4% tax increase on the income of most small business owners which will equate into job losses.
An 8% “tax on jobs” for businesses that do not purchase government-mandated insurance.
A 2.5% excise tax on the purchase of private insurance plans.
Tax increases on healthcare, health insurance and jobs do not make health care more affordable.
3) Our insurance premiums will go up:
The new, $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums.
According to estimates by CBO, changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will raise premiums paid by seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B by $25 billion.
Seniors enrolled in Part D will see premiums rise by 20%.
And those who purchase private insurance or are on Medicare won’t be the only ones affected by higher premiums. According to the CBO, the government-run public option “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.”
4) Congress will use the force of government to make you buy a product:
The House bill includes an individual mandate which will make every American purchase health insurance. Non-compliance with this mandate could result in a tax increase of up to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Forget to pay this tax and you could be fined an additional $25,000 and even face up to a year behind bars.
5) Mandating health insurance is unconstitutional:
Supporters of the House bill argue that Congress is granted constitutional authority to mandate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power, “to regulate Commerce… among the several States.” However, the Supreme Court has held that in order for something to be considered commerce it must at the very least be an economic activity. A mandate on health insurance forces Americans to purchase a product simply because they are alive. Merely existing is not an economic activity. Giving Congress the ability to force citizens to buy a certain product eliminates every restraint put in place by our nation’s founders and imposes upon the liberties that our government was established to defend.
6) The House reform bill hurts consumers and employees:
The House bill aims to fund reform by placing higher tax burdens upon the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufactures and employers. Instead of footing the bill for these higher tax burdens, however, companies will pass taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices and on to employees in the form of lower wages. Consumers and employees will suffer as a result of these “corporate” tax increases. If passed, the bill will ensure that prices go up which is the exact opposite of what we were told reform would do.
7) The House proposal hurts seniors:
A great deal of the spending included in the House reform bill is offset by hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare. Such cuts will raise senior’s premiums and weaken their control over their own personal health care destiny. According to CBO estimates, changes in Medicare Part D will raise Medicare Part B premiums by $25 billion and Medicare Part D premiums by 20%. The bill also proposes over $150 billion in cuts from the popular Medicare Advantage plan which one out of every five senior citizens uses to get more benefits than traditional Medicare offers.
8.) Passing the “Doc Fix” as a separate bill is dishonest and will NOT preserve the bill’s “deficit neutral” status:
This deception explains why the House bill is estimated to reduce the deficit. If the “doc-fix” were included in the House bill, however, it would add at least $200 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and most likely much more beyond that. Splitting higher reimbursements into a separate piece of legislation is an underhanded attempt by Congress to deceive Americans about the true cost of their health care overhaul.
9) Sadly, Congress has missed an opportunity to incorporate reforms that make healthcare more accessible and affordable for American families:
HR3962 DOES NOT:
Allow families and businesses to purchase health insurance across state lines
Provide the same opportunities to individuals as are provided to corporations and unions
Provide equal tax treatment for all Americans
Provide adequate tort reform
Any Congressman who votes to pass this legislation is looking out for his own special interests and agenda. We are educated and we are watching. You work for us and the 2010 election is just a year away. VOTE NO.
Iowa Congressmen include:
Rep Bruce Braley (D-1st) - (202)225-2911
https://forms.house.gov/braley/webforms/issue_subscribe.html
Illinois Congressmen include:
Rep Phil Hare (D-17th) - (202) 225-5905
http://hare.house.gov/?sectionid=74§iontree=44,50,74
Please use the Share the Wealth feature at the bottom of this post to let everyone know about this post and the message we are trying to get out there. Once you've done that you need to call your friends and family and ask them help you to contact the Congressman in their districts and states because we need to overload the Congressional server and phone lines.
For more information:
http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/top-10-reasons-to-oppose-nancy-pelosi%E2%80%99s-takeover-o
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
Print This Post
Rural Homes To Be Assessed – Inside & Out
Awhile back I read a news article by the Quad City Times that stated more than 5,500 rural homes in the county were to be assessed both inside and out. This prompted me to wonder what kind of physical access would be required in order to do a really good assessment as indicated in the article.
So, I sent an email to the County Assessor's Office as follows:
Dear Scott County Assessors Team:
I read an article yesterday stating that you will be conducting
assessments on rural properties throughout the Scott County area. I
don't live in any of the mentioned areas but do have a question about
the process. That is: What happens if a homeowner refuses to let you
into their home when performing an assessment? What kind of
repercussions could be expected?
Thank you for your time and consideration of my questions.
I received the following reply less than an hour later (not bad for a government 'eh!):
Iowa law requires homeowners to assist the assessor in listing the
property. This would include measuring the exterior and listing the
interior. If it is not possible to view the interior, then the
appraiser will estimate the listing based on the best information
available from inspection, previous listings, photos, typical
neighborhood standards, etc. Our goal is to value all properties
properly.Dale Denklau
I pondered on that response for a little while and then asked the following:
Dale:
Thank you for the quick response! I'm sorry to be a bother, but could
you give me the code you are referring to when you said, "Iowa law
requires homeowners to assist the assessor in listing the property".
Maybe I need to be more specific in terms of a scenario to help better
explain my question. So, what would happen if the assessor rang the
bell, the homeowner answered, and then said no to allowing the
assessor entry. Would the sheriff be called in?Thanks again and I look forward to your response!
I think this was a fair question and so received the following reply:
Iowa Code Section 441.18 states: " Each assessor shall, with the
assistance of each person assessed---". Code Section 441.19 is titled
"Owner to assist-provisions for assessment". Code Section 441.24 is
titled "Refusal to furnish statement" and states in part "the
assessor---shall proceed to list and assess the property according to
the best information obtainable, and shall add to the taxable valuation
one hundred percent thereof,---". Our goal is not to penalize the
taxpayer, but to value the property correctly. We have very seldom
applied any penalty to any assessment.Our preference is to view the interior as well as the exterior in order
to judge the quality of construction as well as the physical condition.
Refusing entry will not result in involving the sheriff.Dale Denklau
I'm happy to say that our liberties and freedoms, at least in this case, will not be violated by this new action and I applaud the Scott County Assessors Office and Mr. Denklau for their quick and detailed responses.
If you would like more information on this subject or have other questions about real estate property, assessments, and taxes related to such I highly recommend you contact their office in these ways:
Mail:
Scott County
Assessor's Office
Administrative Center
600 W. 4th St.
Davenport, Iowa 52801-1030
Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 4:30
Office: (563) 326-8635
Email:
assessor@scottcountyiowa.com
Print This Post
Hey Feds.. are you seeing these numbers!?
Did you know that as of today there are:
- 1.2 million loans in the US are 90+ days delinquent
- 1.5 million homes are in foreclosure but not yet owned by the bank
There are MANY more homes that are already foreclosed on that are owned by banks, Fannie, Freddie, FHA, and others including city and state governments directly.
The information was obtained from the analysts at RBS. So, just for the fun of it, lets assume that they are wrong by a factor of 50%. That would add another 1.3 million homes to the inventory over the next year or so, right?
Now, lets take a look at the existing home sales according to the graph created by my buddy over at Calculated Risk:
This means that existing home sales would be at about the 5 million range. That means foreclosures would add an additional 3 months worth of inventory to the housing market.
Now, lets take a look at the inventory of existing homes on the market:
This chart says that there are already 4 million existing homes on the market. At 5 million per year, that's currently about a 10 month inventory. That also means that we're going to see another 3 months worth of inventory added due to the impending foreclosures. Keep in mind that this assumes that we're going to be able to keep 50% of the loans out of foreclosure. That's a pretty generous assumption.
Now add the following chart from Zillow which says that approximately 30% of all existing home buyers will put their houses on the market at the "first sign" of a market turn around.
These statics of course cannot always be 100% accurate but wouldn't it be nice if they were even half wrong!? However, looking at these statistics we can see that we are nowhere near a healthy housing market.
Ah yes, lets not forget that job loss issue that some people seem to be having. Doesn't the following graph just give you all kinds of good feelings when it comes to seeing how people are going to pay for their homes or even buy new ones?
Thanks to calculated risk for the excellent graphs. Does anyone see where I could be wrong? Let me know what you're thinking.
Print This Post
Property Taxes In Scott County Expected To Rise
You probably already know that properties value here in the Quad Cities haven't changed all that much. There have been some foreclosures but nothing to really write home to Mom. That's the good news; prepare yourself for the bad news.
Property owners, according to Scott County Assessor Dale Denklau and Davenport Assessor Becky Eiting, could face higher property taxes next year because of several factors. When speaking to government officials like Denkalu, Eiting, and others you will hear that the State may change the rollback factor to increase to a higher percentage. Of course, local tax bodies like city governments can offset this change by adjusting lower their tax levies to keep our taxes at about the same level.
Now, what you don't hear is the REASON for the changes and that means we as citizens must dig deeper into the story. Well, considering the State of Iowa, like 45 other States, is facing a budget deficit for the current and next fiscal years. In fact, for the FY2009 Iowa is facing a $134 million deficit that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities projects say will rise to $779 million for next years budget. Don't worry folks, things may look bad, but we're the government and we're here to help. If you would like more information about Iowa's budget woes you can find a great in-depth story here.
So because we as citizens have been working hard, keeping up our homes values by improving them and keeping them in good repair, and trying to do the right thing it is our State & Local Governments who are going to PUNISH us for our efforts. They have spent themselves silly and mismanaged our tax money and this is the thanks we get for it.
Please join me and write our State representatives and let them know exactly how you feel about the change in the rollback factor, the increase in property taxes, and finally how they've mismanaged our tax dollars and caused this whole mess. You can find the contact information below:
Governor Chet Culver & Lt. Governor Patty Judge
Legislators (find your district's rep and contact them)
If you would like more information on how Iowa Property Taxes work you can find that explanation here.
Print This Post
9/12 March on Washington – Largest Ever?
The Obama Administration & Congress refuse to believe that Americans actually don't want them to run our healthcare. Technically speaking, they are already running our healthcare with massive industry regulations, Medicaid, Medicare, and the list goes on. This video was release today and I was so impressed with it that I thought I would share it with all of you. So, without further ado, 9/12 March on Washington:
Print This Post
One of the MANY reasons why I voted for Ron Paul
Let me ask you a question: If you had to choose a complete stranger, someone you've never met in person or spoke to, to watch your children and your finances who would it be and why? Well, I'll tell you that if I had to make this decision I would hands down choose Ron Paul. His voting record, books, personal and professional history all tell a tale of a man who is honorable, Christian, and holds integrity to the highest standard. I would trust him with my very own life because I know he cares about his country, he cares about people, and he cares about the truth.
If Ron Paul should run for president again I beg you to really take a hard look at him, study and research what he says, and then go out and campaign for him and VOTE for him. In fact, in 2003 he actually predicted exactly what is happening today and it behooves you to take a look at what he's now prediction for our future. Take a look at this clip and you'll see what I mean:
You can find more information about Ron Paul at his website: http://www.ronpaul.com/
Print This Post
Davenport, IA – A how-to on fixing rising crime rates…
Davenport, IA is a city adjacent to the one I'm currently living in and as a neighbor (and previous resident) of Davenport I have noticed that crime seems to be an even more pressing issue lately. In fact, I can't remember a time where I've looked in the morning newspaper and can daily find an article stating that someone has been stabbed or shot. These crimes seem to generally happen and stem from certain population areas of Davenport that the police just can't seem to get under and keep under control. So, here is my Libertarian idea of how I would resolve the problems if I were the Mayor and/or Police Chief of Davenport:
The number one way, and most popular way, is to spend more tax money by hiring more police officers to patrol the streets. However, even though Rudy G. in New York proved this method can work at what tax ramifications are we shoving down the throats of the city's citizens? I believe I have a better idea; although half-baked I thought I would list it here and see what kind of comments I could drum up from the audiance.
My plan would be to designate swafts of population centers that seem to house those who cause the most issues. For example, take the area between Locust, Bridge, 14th, & Brady and call it Zone Alpha. Zone Alpha properties will now be given special tax breaks in order to make them highly appealing to investors. For example, the average home price in that area is probably around $60,000 and the age of the home is nearing 70-100 years old and in fairly poor condition. However, these homes were built during a time where bigger was better and hardwood floors, stairs, and other areas were all the rage (as we know these features are in major demand now-a-days as history repeats itself like clockwork) and with excellent square footage and great bones can be turned into beautiful masterpieces.
So lets give investors the tax breaks as follows:
- Investors who purchase a property within the next 18 months will be given a 100% break on capital gains if they bring the property up to code and refurbish the entire home and lot with 12 months.
- Investors will be required to sell the property within 24 months from the 12 months refurbishment deadline giving them a total of 3 years from start to finish to fix and sell the property.
- Investors will not be required to pay property taxes on the property during that 3 year period. In addition, to help spur sales new homeowners will not be required to pay property taxes for an additional two years from purchase of the property.
I believe this plan could work because investors would automatically make a large % of their flipping profit on the capital gains tax savings and the property tax savings right off the top. That doesn't even count the spread they will make from the original purchase price and final sales price with appreciation factored in as well. The city may lose out on some tax revenue initially but in the long run they will make much more because the values of the properties will have massively increased (thus increasing property tax income) and because the purchase price of the properties will be out of the range of previous tenants and incoming hooligans which would immediately reduce crime.
Two major questions come to mind when I present this scenario. 1.) How would you get current homeowners and/or renters to move out? and 2.) Where would these people go?
Well, the first question can be complicated but I think I can tackle it. Let's say that someone purchased one of the properties in this area two years ago for the average $60,000. Well, an investor could come in an offer a 5% premium over the current assessed value of the property (maybe more) and convince the owner to move. Afterall, the neighborhood knows that the prices of the homes will only come down due to the age of the properties and violence in the neighborhood so I could take an educated guess that very few, if any, would pass up such an opportunity. Afterall, the investor stands to make an automatic profit from the tax savings alone and so has a lot of room to negotiate an acceptable offer.
Secondly, we must answer the question of where would these people go? Well, once the neighborhood properties have outpriced the previous owners/dwellers they would be forced to rent/buy elsewhere. Of course some will find local homes in other local neighboorhoods but many will generally move out of the city. In fact, if this plan takes place all over the city there will be nowhere for these people to reside within the city or surrounding areas. So then it begs the question of, "What about neighboring cities, won't they have to deal with these people and the crime?". Honestly, yes they will and with that being said I say, "Who cares." No really, we resolved the problem here and so when these hooligans move out of our city where do we care where they go, as long as they aren't here to cause us problems it truly is... no longer our problem. Those cities will have to deal with the issue in their own way.
I'd love to hear comments about my idea and perhaps someone can shoot me down and explain why they believe this wouldn't work. So fire away!
Print This Post
Categories
- City Government (8)
- Federal Government (45)
- Personal Heroes Profiles (5)
- State Government (12)
Current Reading
Archives
Recent Comments
- A Fearless Prediction « QC Examiner on TIME CRITICAL – We’re In the Fight Of Our Lives
- QC Watchdog on Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman
- VegasNative on Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman
- QC Watchdog on Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman
- An American on Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman