Insured and Secured 8% Annual return Investment opportunity

Insured and Secured 8% Annual return Investment opportunity
Not a scam, only three are available.

Monday, November 30, 2009 » Economy » SCHOOL - 1957 vs 2009 » Economy » SCHOOL - 1957 vs 2009

Sorry, but this link is no longer working and beyond Daily PUMA's control to fix.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Judges Suddenly paying attention to Banksters that abuse the system and are starting to take them on! Better now than never.

The more people blog about bankster abuse, the harder it will be for judges to ignore the situation. News reporters are finding it easier to gauge home owner and credit card user's experiences by googling. This in turn makes it easier for the reporter to focus on the judges. It appears some judges are starting to turn the tables on the banksters.

I could see this particular case being overturned on appeal based on one technicality, the couple had no equity in the home and the bank could probably argue that they needed to put their resources into helping homeowners that had at least some equity in their home.

However, if it turns out that the bank was basically trying to scoop up as many homes into foreclosure as they could, then the case may hold up even on appeal. I wish the judge could have found a case where the homeowners had equity in their home, but, at least the judge is making a statement to the banks, and that is the most important thing of all.

The next step would be to pass a federal law that nobody can be evicted from their own home without a judge's decree. This would ensure that the bank follows the proper guidelines before evicting a homeowner.
Presently, tax payer funded law enforcement is being used by the banksters to evict homeowners without any judicial notification or approval, and that needs to change.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Oh No, Convicted UBS employee turned whistle blower is suing for a whistle blower reward, wants BILLIONS!

The jail time of 40 months will not be that prolific for Bradley C. Birkenfeld when compared to the billions Birkenfeld hopes to receive for his "whistleblowing" efforts. Apparently Mr. Bradley C. Birkenfeld walked into the Justice Department's office and told of secret offshore accounts involving UBS.

If Mr. Birkenfeld is entitled a "reward", I don't think it is ethical that he get more and more money because he sat on the information long enough so that the amount of money that has been discovered has grown as well.

I would split the whistleblower's reward, giving most if to charities, or perhaps, to the 10,000 homeowners who are being foreclosed upon EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country to help modify their home loans.

I would limit what Mr. Birkenfeld goets to a certain time window, A one year window, perhaps just six months. Otherwise, if whistleblowers get more money by holding onto the information for a longer period of time, whistleblowing will have many whistlestops along the way before they actually comes forward.

Federal Reserve tries theater ads to burnish its image --

Federal Reserve tries theater ads to burnish its image --

The federal reserve is running commercials in movie theaters that warn consumers not to run up credit card debt, I find this action to be a stones throw distance from the twilight zone.

Is the Federal Reserve admitting that too much credit card debt at obscene interest rates just might not be a good thing for the economy or the future of our country??? Ya think.

And yet, Wall street waits with baited breath hoping consumers will run up their credit cards this holiday season so the "eCONoME" picks up.

"Buy-Polar-Opposite eCONoME" anyone? Wall Street Needs consumers to go further into credit card debt to proclaim an economic recovery, yet the Federal Reserve knows that consumer credit card debt reduction would actually strengthen local economies all over the country without having to raise taxes.

Credit Card Debt reduction would instead actually create jobs and increase tax revenue as local economies began to spring back from an influx of people paying other people for local goods and services versus just paying monthly obscene credit card interest rate charges.

Posted using

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Is China Destroying our Infrastructure?

(Edit update, the investigation has now expanded to include american made drywall)

From tainted toys, to tainted baby food, and now, DRYWALL! It doesn't get much more "infrastructured" than drywall, does it? Even the New Orleans Saints were affected by the tainted drywall. Apparently the drywall fumes are dangerous and destroy wiring, and probably aren't so great for people's lungs either.

What about those yellow gas lines that all the hardware stores now carry that are made in China? Are we going to find out they only last a couple of years and then leak and cause home explosions? Just asking.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Beware of Laura Kelsey and her idiotic Prostate Cancer Articles.


I am just besides myself over the idiocy this person has started spewing on the internet about prostate cancer. Did you know that if you have prostate cancer you can take a vaccine and be cured? Yeah, me neither, but Laura Kelsey knows. Kelsey is not giving out the name of the vaccine, but hey, that's just a technicality, right?

Of course I will listen to anybody that wants to defend Kelsey's position. My fear is that it is either a sick joke or someone trying to cobble together prostate cancer articles so they can make money on the internet based on hits.

Here is the link to Kelsey's "profile", feel free to read the prostate articles, they seem to pop out at the rate of one every day or two, some information is common knowledge, and then there is the don't worry if you have prostate cancer because it is curable crap that is being spewed out as well.

I am personally offended as I witnessed my father's 10 year battle with prostate cancer that ended with his death earlier this year. On the one hand, I was lucky to have him around so much longer after the diagnosis, on the other it was a form of slow motion agony to watch and not be able to really help stop the cancer.

I have a rule about not calling out non-celebs on a title post, but I have broken it just for you, Laura Kelsey.

Friday, November 20, 2009

David Letterman's Darkest Hour, his skewering of John McCain for "snubbing David" in favor of Katie Couric.

Click here to see DailyPUMA's most recent article.

There are so many things wrong with what David Letterman did when he skewered John McCain last year because McCain "snubbed" Letterman that I could make a list.

1. David Letterman's outrage at being snubbed for a woman news anchor who anchors the PRIME TIME news is one.

2. David Letterman ridiculing the importance of the bailout bill, that it is not enough of a reason for David Letterman to be snubbed.

3. David Letterman first honoring McCain's military career, than implying that that in no way compares with snubbing David Letterman. Are you kidding me? What kind of an egomaniac does that?

4. Olbermann as a guest actually having the gall to imply that it is ok to vote for McCain if he is being interviewed by Katie Couric because she has enough money to fix the economy, George Soros, his billions, and Olbermann's loyalty to Barack Obama in 2008 anybody? You all know that in part based on the hit job that Olbermann lobbed at Hillary Clinton, Olbermann's got a big fat pay increase.

5. Letterman implying that his being snubbed and McCain being interviewed by Katie Couric instead means McCain is not "alright".

6. Letterman implying that McCain did not allow Sarah Palin to take over the campaign because he was afraid to, when the suspension of McCain's campaign had to do with postponing the presidential debate to focus on the bailout bill, which actually has nothing to do with Sarah Palin since Palin could not face Barack Obama in the debates anyways.

7. Hey, David, was everything "alright" in your world while you were taking potshots at a presidential candidate war hero for wanting to treat the bailout like it was a very important issue? Were you actually going on camera berating another public figure and implying they were not "alright" while you had your own personal relationship problems swirling around you?

8. Hey David Letterman, didn't you take a time out on your own show while you told everybody you were being extorted over something you actually did? Wait, I thought snubbing you was more important than McCain helping to frame a bailout bill, but when it came time for you to do your show after being extorted, you called a timeout instead of going to your number two person, Paul Schaffer.

9. I didn't see Paul Schaffer take over for you David the way you thought Sarah Palin should take over for John McCain after you took a couple of days off from your own show because of your own bailout plan from an extortion attempt.

Even the comments left here all point to John McCain being afraid to debate Barack Obama even though McCain had already outperformed Barack Obama in the Rick Warren Saddleback Church debate.

10. Would David Letterman have admnistered such a skewering of John McCain IF Mr. McCain had swapped his time with a male news anchor rather than Katie Couric?

MSNBC APOLOGIZES for Sarah Palin Spoof, when do they apologize for Keith Olbermann?

Clingy Cat Annoys Texas Cop

CLINGY CAT ANNOYS TEXAS COP, CLICK HERE TO FIRST SEE A 30 SEC COMMERCIAL, THEN THE ABC NEWS VIDEO CLIP. I have no control over the commercial that precedes the video clip, nor the KY Jelly commercials ABC sometimes puts up just before their "families in foreclosure" clips either, but the clingy cat video is worth seeing.

Memo / hint to ABC, how about you let me select what type of commercial will run before the video clip that I want others to see? If the first thing thing someone sees when I recommend an ABC video clip to them is a KY Jelly commercial, that's not necessarily a good thing depending on whom I am telling about the video clip, no?

Back to the clingy cat story.---------------------------

Was that really a kick? I don't think it was really a kick. It wasn't even a punt. It was more of a lift and separate manuever. Perhaps the clip could be renamed, Clingy Cat Cuddles Cantankerous Cop, except that the cop was not cantankerous.

And, just how did the cat get on the cops shoulders? Claws sure can come in handy, can't they? I wonder what the cat was trying to tell the copper.
"Don't give them a ticket, seeeee, you can be petting me right now if you weren't writing that ticket, seeeee, you, you, you dirty rat you, pet me, pet me, it's always about me".

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Mobile Advertising Madness, Vegas Strippers on Display in a see through Cargo Van.

A couple of years ago I noticed a car with a television screen that was easily visible to nearby cars.

I wondered how long it would be before someone got cited for either distracting other drivers with video images, or perhaps even showing inappropriate material to a minor that might see the video from another car.

Just now I found this story on ABC News....
....about exotic dancers in Vegas being driven around in a plexiglass Cargo Van as they promote a local strip club.
Rather than wait until they were either sued for distracting drivers and causing accidents or worse, the strip club shut down the van, themselves.

Here I was wondering about the possible distraction a television monitor in someones car could cause to other drivers, whereas in Vegas they couldn't be more in your face, actually driving a see through plexi glass cargo van with live dancers inside for all to gawk at.

I find the entire episode disconcerting. I find it surprising, to say the least, that it was up to the strip club itself to stop the activity. As the woman in the news video aptly pointed out, the girls inside the cargo van that can be seen dancing look really, really young, too young.

On a comical note, could you imagine seeing a dentist or a chiropractor working on patients in a similar type of vehicle! Click here to see the ABC video (warning, 30 second commercial will play before the news clip starts).

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Families in Foreclosure

Families in Foreclosure - Click on the Families in Foreclosure link to see the heart wrenching ABC video about a US Vet now working in the private sector who was injured on the job and went on disability. Husband, wife, daughter, son and family dog are being evicted from their home in Mason, Ohio, not for credit card debt nor for living beyond their means.

In my opinion the Video takes a creepy turn at the end when it focuses on the neighbors helping the family leave by midnight so the family can collect a 2,000 dollar check from the realtor.

The video tries to create an "It's a Wonderful Life" feeling because the neighbors pitched in to help the family move out by midnight. It was a nice gesture by the neighbors for sure, but what were the actual details surrounding the eviction? Was it really necessary? The man had no credit card debt and drove a ten year old car, and the family home was an econo-town home.

The townhome had dropped over 20% in value from when it was first purchased SIX YEARS AGO. I'm just throwing this out there, he may have been injured in a private sector job, but it is also possible it was a pre-existing condition from the time he spent in the military.

I say this based on my discussion with a former vet who actually hurt his back in the military and refused disability and works to this day lifting and setting up equipment. They tend to have a level of personal pride that is just not matched by society's upper crust, the ones that tend to sit around counting their every shrinking profits.

In the meantime, I am really suspicious why, if he has to be evicted, he could not just rent the place out instead. The home was not that expensive, the monthly rent could have easily paid the house payment and even given him an extra hundred bucks or two.

I hope he was not taken advantage of by the system.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Chase Bank's Parallel Foreclosure Policy when home owners ask for a home loan modification, an evil way to do business when better alternatives exist.

I have now read numerous articles about Chase Bank. I don't want to over exaggerate and say I have read hundreds of articles, but I also don't want to under exaggerate and say it's only been a few dozen either.

Home Loan Modifications is a very very hot topic. One of the biggest talking points the democrats offered prior to the 2008 elections was helping people save their homes. The democratic gains in congress and the winning of the white house was in part due to their promise to help homeowners who were struggling with too much debt and not enough job opportunities.

Most homeowners would be happy if they could either pay down their debts, or simply tread water. To that end, just what has changed since the 2008 presidential election? Americans assumed that home loan modification programs would not only be implemented, but also be fast tracked. There has been no fast tracking that I am aware of for the purpose of saving people's homes, and understanding why might help lead to a solution.

Lets quickly recap what has caused banks such as Chase Bank to thwart the american homeowner's desire to simply be able to afford their home without becoming a deadbeat.

News stories began appearing about people who were giving up on their home loans and just staying in their homes for free until they were forcibly evicted. Stories floated around on the internet about people living for free for over a year and still not being evicted.

Other stories came out that if one asked for the "note" to be produced by the bank that the homeowner had signed when they originally accepted a loan from the bank, a delay of several months to over a year could result. In some instances the note could not be found and this caused additional delays as well.

While stopping home mortgage payments or asking for the note sounds like a way to get back at "the system", it's also an antagonistic maneuver that I believed would result in banks such as Chase Bank responding with new and more aggressive tactics.
Enter Parallel Foreclosures. Apparently the banks won't renegotiate a lower interest rate on a home loan unless the homeowner falls behind in their payments. However, the moment the homeowner falls behind with their payments, banks such as Chase Bank begin a process called Parallel Foreclosures.
Even as Chase Bank is allegedly re-negotiating the homeowner's mortgage loan, another Chase Bank division is busy filing foreclosures papers on the homeowners home!
So, just as I initially suspected, the banks have decided anybody who is looking for a home loan modification might just be stalling, and to combat that stalling, banks such as Chase Bank begin the process of foreclosing on the homeowner's home as soon as possible.

There are so many obvious reasons why this is the wrong path by the bank to be taking that I will be devoting a chapter in my upcoming book, The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank, to the parallel foreclosure issue. However, for the here and now, I would like to offer a solution.
If a homeowner has experienced a significant depreciation in the value of their home in the past couple of years, the affected homeowner should AUTOMATICALLY be eligible for a home loan modification without it triggering a parallel foreclosure by banks such as Chase Bank.
As the percentage of a home's depreciation increases, the lower the interest rate the home owner can be offered for their home loan modification.

The usefulness of this idea is boundless. If the banks choose to claim that a customer's home has not lost much value, then the banks should make a home equity line available on the home in line with the minimal loss in value that they think the house has depreciated.
If the bank agrees that the home has devalued significantly, then the homeowner benefits by getting a super nice interest rate on their home loan in exchange for the loss of home equity. The homeowner and the banks are protected no matter which route is taken!
If the bank believes a home has not lost that much home equity value but is also worried about a homeowner taking the home equity line and skipping town, just limit the amount the homeowner can take out every month to a relatively small percentage of the entire equity line. Just limit equity line withdrawals at around 3 to 4 percent of the total they are eligible to borrow.

Since the homeowner's loan is being modified based on home depreciation and home depreciation only, the homeowner cannot be suspected of trying to scam the system so there is no need to file parallel foreclosure papers for the home loan remodification.
Home Depreciation Loan Modifications become a win win for EVERYBODY! Lower banking costs are required to process the Home Depreciation Loan Modification, and surreptitious behavior by the banks involving parallel foreclosures can be greatly mitigated.
Homeowners either get a more generous home equity line to borrow from if the banks want to claim there has not been as large a depreciation in the home as the homeowner is claiming, OR if the banks are claiming a higher depreciation than the homeowner believes is accurate, the homeowner gets an even more attractive home loan modification on their existing home loan!

I believe this idea I am presenting is a direct result of all the contemplating I have done for my book, the Cat Who Ate Chase Bank. I think this idea could be fast tracked and end the acrimonious situation that presently exists between banks such as Chase Bank and home owners wanting to renegotiate their home mortgages.

What do you think?

Alessandro Machi also collects not so nice stories about Chase bank at the following blogs, The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank, Daily-Protest, Bloggers Against Chase Bank, and Robots Against Chase.

Article update - (Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009) Parallel Foreclosures can eventually lead to law enforcement being used to forcibly move people out of their homes even without a judge having ever been involved!
Banks using Police Officers with guns without a judge to make sure everything has been handled fairly and ethically, we can do better than that, no ???

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Clinical Trial Shenanigans I just cannot comprehend regarding age range and placebos.

Click on Image to Enlarge
From what I have learned in the past couple of years, it seems like many times the hospital doctors are actually pretty accurate when it comes to diagnosing advanced cancer cases and how much longer someone is expected to live.

While there will always be cases in which the doctors prognosis is wrong, they seem to know pretty accurately most of the time. Yet when I look at clinical trial studies, the studies seem to require that perhaps as many as half of the patients actually receive only a placebo.

Do we really really need placebo'd patients in later stages of a disease progression clinical trial study when hospital doctors already seem to know how long someone is going to live based on past examples?

If placebos are required, does it really have to include nearly half of the people involved in the clinical trial regarding cases of an advanced disease?

If you were hopeful of having your terminally diagnosed life saved by an experimental treatment that just might work, would you want to be among the half that got the placebo instead? Probably not. Even if the percentage of those given a placebo was much smaller, would you still find it acceptable if you got the placebo when you really wanted the treatment?

If you were age 76, and the clinical trial age range cut off was 75, wouldn't you wonder why you couldn't be part of the study anyways if you had already been diagnosed as terminal?

If Doctors in hospitals have gotten pretty good at diagnosing later stages of cancer, and that cancer patient is willing to try a clinical trial that has already been approved by the FDA, why can't the regimentation of the trial be made available to those who want to fight for their own life even if they don't live in the state where the clinical trial is going on?

If a clinical trial was being done in Texas, but you lived in Ohio, wouldn't you want the choice to be part of the clinical trial by having a hospital in Ohio follow the protocol of the clinical trial being done in Texas? Especially if flying to Texas might weaken your health and already alter the result?

If the answer is, the longer people live, the more they receive in social security benefits and the more they cost "the health care system", then just make that sentiment public knowledge and be done with it.

Isn't it time to allow older men and women who have been terminally diagnosed to be part of a clinical trial even if they can't travel to the place the trial is being done, don't want the placebo, or are "too old" under the current system as it is currently structured?

Is that really asking for too much?

(Edit note, just two nights ago (Nov. 17, 2009), I heard a report, I think it was on ABC nightly news about the mammogram controversy, and the story claimed it was difficult to find people to participate in clinical trials! Perhaps the idea of getting a placebo discourages people from getting involved.)

Why is it OK for Chase Bank to Outsource American Jobs to the Philippines when the jobs are for handling American Customers?

Why aren't Americans being hired by Chase Bank to service American customers? Why is it acceptable to outsource Chase Bank jobs to the Philippines when the jobs are specifically to handle american clients?


Sunday, November 8, 2009

Lets Get Ready to Rumble! Not! Bill Clinton and George Bush do the right thing and cancel their Los Angeles and New York "Cage Match Debates".

Apparently an overzealous promoter kept amping up the PR regarding two panel discussions that was to feature Bill Clinton and George Bush. Instead of the two former presidents meeting to discuss issues based on their presidential experience, the promoter of the event chose to publicize there appearance as a "debate" between two former presidents.

If this is true, than the promoter is an idiot in my opinion. It makes me wonder how they rose to such a position of importance that they could be trusted to promote such an important event.

I wonder if the promoter was envisioning a G. Gordon Liddy vs Timothy Leary series of debates between Bush and Clinton. If so, how could anyone be that misguided, and disrespectful of our two former presidents?

One could argue that their appearance fee was "too low" at 150,000 dollars each. But I don't think that was it at all. I just think they realize how easily the press capitulates to stupid PR angles and decided not to be a part of it.

Friday, November 6, 2009

DailyPUMA is ONE YEAR OLD, and in case you wondered what the mission statement was, here it is.

DailyPUMA is now one years old, Yippee!

In just the past couple of weeks it has dawned on me that it has become very, very important to keep reminding readers that...

1. ...there is unfinished business from 2008 involving Barack Obama and his people CHEATING in the caucus contests.

2.....Barack Obama accepting money that he KNEW was fraudulently donated to him via the use of fake names,

3.....Identifying the democrats that went out of their way to support Barack Obama and diss Hillary Clinton when they just could have easily as waited on the sidelines and let the democratic voters decide at the ballot box,

4.....Exposing the intertwined relationship that Barack Obama has with Wall Street Bankers at the expense of middle, "bitter: america,

5.....Spotlighting lazy, conceited, men in suits who profit from making fun of woman or diminishing them in the media,

6.....Spotlight women who are doing things and women who are being ridiculed and ignored when they should be congratulated for doing the right thing.

7.....Be a conduit that connects PUMA blogs in a fast and efficient manner so that we can get the most information in the fastest possible time so we can keep in touch more easily with more PUMA blogs.

8......Exposing the republican conservative frauds and their blogs who simply hate all things democrat while pretending to be supporters of PUMA

9......Reveal and expose the conservative younger blogs that are nothing more than retreads of their older predecessors and simply hate on Hillary Clinton every chance they get.

10......Hope to be around when the wrongdoers publicly admit they acted unethically in the 2008 democratic race and want to apologize to Hillary Clinton.

11.....Would like to see Barack Obama resign one day with an incredibly eloquent speech that actually allows him to keep his political career going as a changed, humbled man.

12....Hillary Clinton has grown by leaps and bounds as a person and a politician and would make the finest next president of anybody out there from either party.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Response to Cannonfire's Blogging will end topic.

I've blogged a counter argument in the past on how to stop the copyrighters from overstepping their bounds.

Big obnoxious warnings need to be placed on each and every copyrighted piece of material that is being sold that warns the buyer they can only consume the product, they can never show it to anybody else nor edit it nor comment about it on a blog, yada, yada, yada. This will instantly create a backlash from consumers who are offended at such a heightened level of arrogance from the studios. Eventually, a compromise may be reached where bloggers and internet users can buy super low priced "releases" that free them to discuss or show clips of copyrighted content.

In turn, if bloggers actually create sales for the content providers by discussing the content on their own blog, the bloggers would get reimbursed as well. Until we reach that compromise, Other inconsistencies abound as well. Studios regularly use illegally created actor demo reels to help determine who they may hire in the future. These actor demo reels don't have releases, yet the studios view this contraband material to help determine who they will hire AND what they will pay them.

It becomes inconsistent for studios to sue consumers for putting content on youtube when the studios actually gauge the number of viewers the content receives and then make educated decisions based on viewer response. The studios are double dipping, suing consumers for the very same illegal practices they engage in themselves. On top of that, the studios actually use YouTube popularity to determine what new hot talent they might hire, yet who did the studios pay for this worldwide research? Nobody.

However, I do have empathy for the studios because a LOT of people are stealing content. The studios and the consumer need a third party that will fairly assess and address both sides needs, fairly. This is exactly what killed the automobile industry in this country. Greedy executives and greedy labor union leaders at the bargaining table forgetting that the consumer, aka their customers, is what mattered most.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

I want to apologize for Robert Reich's latest blog article, it is so stupid his blog is being removed from the right two columns.

All I can say is "Gasp", Robert Reich is wrong as wrong can be. His blog article... How Obama Can Convince Congress to Enact a Larger Stimulus, and Why He Must. Is just outrageously wrong.
I have a suggestion Mr. Reich,
A credit card interest rate incentive program would create an impactful, instant and worthwhile stimulus package. It would create 15-25 billion dollars a month going to YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOUR PLUMBER, YOUR LANDSCAPER, YOUR LOCAL BUILDER, BEFORE the money goes back to the bank to pay down a debt, AND, it would involve NO TAXPAYER MONEY!

I am about the only one I know who is advocating the no interest rate credit card pay down program. I have virtually a 100% pay on time credit card history so I'm not advocating something that has penalized me the way it has penalized others who are paying horrendous credit card interest rates and treading water as a result.

We are being robbed of neighborhood money so that it can stay on Wall Street and be handed back and forth between Wall Street and the politicians they elect. Robert Reich, you are a sell out. » Economy » GOLDMAN SACHS - THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL » Economy » GOLDMAN SACHS - THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

Monday, November 2, 2009

27% Say Hillary Would Be Better President Than Obama

27% Say Hillary Clinton Would Be Better President Than Obama. Click here to read rest of Rasmussen Report Article.

Posted using

The headline could also have said, "76% think Hillary Clinton would either do an equal or better job than Barack Obama". Since I have shared the story from elsewhere, I will leave the headline as they wrote it.

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article....."Just 14% of U.S. voters say Hillary Clinton would be doing a worse job as president than Barack Obama if she had won last year’s Democratic presidential nomination.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 27% of voters think Clinton would be doing a better job as president while 49% say she would be performing about the same."


What I find interesting as well is the Rassumussen Report also finds that Republicans believe that Hillary Clinton would have done a better job than Barack Obama. I implored rich Hillary Clinton supporters to fund this exact kind of survey LAST YEAR when it would have mattered.

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers
Serious Customers Welcome.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?