Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Republicans & Media Decide Classified Information does not exist anymore as they attack Hillary Clinton's presidential bid before it starts.

What is getting lost amidst the attempts to get email gate running at full speed is the concept of classified information. Is nothing classified anymore? I'm not against the concept of transparency but who passed the law that made all political documents declassified whenever congress snaps its fingers?

And if everything has suddenly become declassified, how come George Bush JR repeatedly ignored congressional requests and supoenas?  

When it comes to negotiating with other countries, if a political figure or cabinet member knows that everything they say or do is declassified even as they state a plan of action in a classified setting, their position of authority is stripped even before they say or do anything.

Here's a final thought, the Osama Bin Laden assassination, is Congress entitled to view ALL documents related to that event? Because it seems to me that would expose people to death threats. So which is it, a bi-partisian Congress can ask for anything and all things whenever they want, or, somehow a bi-partisian congress magically knows when to ask and when not to ask for documents and content they have not seen and therefore all of their requests should always be followed to the letter of their demand? 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

If you want a taste of how bad it will be if the republican party make gains in 2016 elections, look at their recent behavior.

First there is Benghazi. What Daily PUMA finds so strange is if Benghazi is supposed to lead to shame and dishonor for democrats, then what the heck was 911? Bush and his cabinet were warned about threats against the United State, yet FOUR, FOUR planes were taken over and did undeniable damage HERE IN THE U.S.! 

How can a sane or rational person in any way, shape or form even begin to imply that Benghazi is anything more than a speck in the dust when compared to Bush's botching of 911. Democrats probably did the right thing by rallying around George Bush (although there will always be suspicions that dark forces possibly from within the U.S. assisted the terrorists by placing GPS tracking devices inside of the intended targets) rather than verbally assaulting his administration for lapses in vision.

And lets not forget the NUMEROUS blunders during the Reagan / Bush era in which the country rallied around the president versus having the democrats assault the republican administration in power for lack of judgement.

Then there are the 22 veterans who are committing suicide everyday in the U.S. while the Benghazi Bombastards continue to divert attention and resources away from the 22 daily veteran suicides and onto more and more Benghazi investigations.

Then there was EbolaGate. Whenever Obama brought up Ebola, Republican politicians complained Obama was politicizing the issue. Yet several Republican governors grandstanded just before the 2014 November elections complaining the federal government was dragging its feet on an ebola policy and therefore they were imposing their own rules and regulations immediately. The timing of the move just before the 2014 fall elections was beyond suspicious, the lack of a dual press conference in which the president and the governors spoke in unison on the ebola issue was appalling.

Not to be outdone, Republican politicians then outdid themselves again by allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress just before the recent Israeli elections. In essence, a republican majority congress interfered in foreign policy by helping re-elect a specific political ally they wanted via the PR boost the prime minister received by speaking in front of congress. The president leads on foreign policy, not congress.

As if that was not enough, 47 congressional republicans also sent a letter to Iran saying they would not honor any peace agreement reached between Barack Obama and Iran! If the Republicans do have a war mongering, pro bank, middle class obtuseness reputation, these are the types of actions that just reinforce that viewpoint to a majority of americans. 

What odds you would place on the Republican majority congress sending a letter to Iran asking them to go solar energy instead of nuclear energy. Pretty much next to impossible, no?

And once again the democrats will let the over the top possibly treasonous actions taken by Republican politicians when clearly some republican politicians have stepped over the line of treason with their recent foreign policy interference.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Monday, March 16, 2015

Why Isn't the US building a fresh water pipeline from the midwest to drought plagued areas in the U.S.?

If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...

info at
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Move On dot org Polarizing the 2016 Presidential Democrat Race.

In 2008 the mega polarizers of the democrat party including Huffington Post, Move on dot org, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and others claimed that Hillary Clinton was "polarizing".

It is now 2016 and one of those polarizing elements of the 2008 race who accused Hillary Clinton of being a polarizing influence are turning out to be the BIGGEST polarizers of them all, that group is Move On dot org.

Excerpt below from a Move-on dot org email. And, just clicking on the link makes one an Elizabeth Warren petition supporter even without seeing what one is clicking on first! FIVE BLIND CALL TO ACTION LINKS that automatically mean support for Elizabeth Warren running for the democrat presidential nomination, all in just this one email.  wow. I've defused the links so they are not active in this article on Daily PUMA's page.

Just because Warren might do well in the first two democrat presidential caucus and primary contests simply means Warren could weaken Hillary Clinton in the long run, and that is the very definition of polarizing, no?
Dear MoveOn member,
We commissioned a poll about Senator Elizabeth Warren's standing in critical presidential primary states, and the results are stunning: When Democratic Iowa Caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters get to know Elizabeth Warren, they overwhelmingly want her to run for president.Our poll shows that if Warren ran, she'd have a real shot. Now it's up to us, together, to convince her to run.  Click here to automatically sign our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We turned to industry leaders at YouGov to conduct this poll, and this is what they found: Voters love Senator Warren's personal story, her status (asTime put it) as a "new sheriff of Wall Street,"2 and, importantly, her major legislative proposals—lowering student-loan interest rates, expanding Social Security, breaking up the big banks, and holding Wall Street criminals accountable.This poll shows unequivocally that a majority of voters in the two critical states of Iowa and New Hampshire are what we'd call "moveable"—they're open to supporting Sen. Warren if we can tell them what she stands for. Realistically, the results don't say that Sen. Warren would win today—but they show that Sen. Warren has a real opportunity to build the levels of support she would need to win in both states if she decided to run. Now, it's up to us to keep urging her to get in the race. Will you join us? Click here to automatically join our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We can make these poll results send shock waves through the political press. And through some very strategic targeting—we can get them in front of real influencers in Washington and people close to Sen. Warren. But first, we need to show that our movement continues to grow. That's why we're asking you to sign our petition today, help us get hit our latest goal of 300,000 signatures, and show that the momentum from our campaign keeps growing. Click here to automatically join our petition. It says "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." Let's dig into the polling numbers a little bit.Our results show that after these likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren's biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79% say they want her to run, but, in both states, Sen. Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.Here's more:
  • 97% of survey respondents across both Iowa and New Hampshire agree with Warren's call to lower student-loan interest rates. 
  • 92% agree with Sen. Warren's call to expand Social Security benefits.
  • 91% agree with her statement about breaking up the big banks.
Those numbers prove that Elizabeth Warren's vision is powerfully resonant with the voters she would need to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary—especially the young voters who'll be critical to any victory in 2016. Sen. Warren holds more than a 20-point lead in a head-to-head match-up with other potential candidates among respondents ages 18-29, once they learn about her. Thanks to these results, we know that support for a contested primary is nearly unanimous among all age groups, and that a core segment of the winning Obama coalition—young people—are particularly excited about Sen. Warren.Our job now is to capitalize on these results—and we can do just that by showing that this news is encouraging more and more people to join the Run Warren Run movement.  Will you join more than 283,000 other Elizabeth Warren supporters by automatically signing our petition? Just click here. This polling shows that Elizabeth Warren has a clear chance to obtain the support she needs to win—and that her story and message resonate deeply with voters.By continuing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of America's working families and working to create a more level economic playing field, Sen. Warren herself could have more than a fighting chance of earning the Democratic nomination for president—and we're intent on proving that to her.  Click here to automatically sign the petition, and join the growing movement.  Thanks for all you do.–Mark, Ilya, Erica, Ben O., and the rest of the teamP.S. Want to see the detailed poll results? Click here to read our memo and results.Sources:1. "MUST SEE: Poll Shows Big Opening for Elizabeth Warren in IA, NH," MoveOn, February 11, 2015 "The New Sheriffs of Wall Street," Time, May 13, 2010 Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Start a monthly donation here or chip in a one time donaton here. PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to #####  ########### on February 11, 2015. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. 

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Move On Dot Org Re-Stabs Hillary Clinton in the back with their ongoing drive to get Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential race.

Daily Puma warned several years ago that the progressive wing of the democrat party would find a candidate other than Hillary Clinton to fall in love with for the 2016 presidential campaign. All you Move-on dot org supporters and supporters of their Causes petition platform help feed the anti-Hillary Clinton Move-on Dot org beast.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Barack Obama staffers stab Hillary Clinton in the Back, probably committing illegal acts by being employed by Obama Administration while promoting Warren at the same time.

While DailyPUMA is not surprised to see Barack Obama staffers stabbing Hillary Clinton in the back and supporting Elizabeth Warren for 2016, it's also probably because the Barack Obama staffers are soon to be out of work.
Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Barack Obama staffers being paid by taxpayer money even as they scope out and promote their next meal ticket in Elizabeth Warren. That's actually illegal. 
If these Barack Obama staffers want to resign their Barack Obama jobs and promote Elizabeth Warren, that is one thing, but to do it while being paid by Barack Obama is incredibly obtuse, wrong, stupid, narcissistic, and probably grounds for these staffers to lose their jobs.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion

This article link, US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion basically states we will pay trillions in interest rate charges on the war debt. More than enough money to completely absorb research, development & production costs for ultra efficient solar and wind technologies.

The U.S. is probably spending 10 billion dollars a MONTH in interest rate charges just to service the war debt of the past 10 years. If the war was a noble cause, then why are those who loaned the war money profiting so handsomely and for so long?

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Democrat Fundraising emails becoming Like Republicans, no new ideas, just asking for more and more money.

The democrat party seems to think that blasting their base with political fundraising emails several times a day asking for money donations will lead to victory in close congressional elections in November, 2014. 

What the democrats should be doing is telling its mailing list how they are going to help both republican and democrat consumers lower their growing consumer debt. It's really that simple.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Friday, October 10, 2014

13 Benghazi's during George Bush Jr's presidency, and Ronald Reagen's presidency had their share of Benghazi moments as well.

Not only did the George Bush Jr. presidency have several Benghazi's his watch Go back even further and the Reagan presidency had their own Benghazi moments as well.

I believe more important than getting into a republican vs democrat debate on the Benghazi issue are the 22 veteran suicides that occur EVERYDAY in the USA.

Here is a group called "Saddles For Soldiers" that is trying to make a difference. Here is another group..."Ride to Recovery" that helps wounded warriors who are back in the U.S. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Looks like DailyPUMA went over the one million mark in hits around Tuesday, August 19th, 2014.

Just noticed now, two days later, that DailyPUMA went over the 1 million visitors mark. Not sure how the google counter works since different stat counters don't pick up the same number of hits as the google counter does.

Sure wish bloggers who are always on one side or the other of the political spectrum would figure out how to be moderate from time to time.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

AlexLOGIC WORDS and PHRASES: Forever Debt.

AlexLOGIC WORDS and PHRASES: Forever Debt.: What is Forever Debt? Forever Debt is debt that is downplayed by economists as "serviceable" on a monthly basis. However what economist fail to mention (to read the rest please click on the link above).

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Military Veterans who died while waiting to schedule medical appointments, what might have caused this situation.

Seems strange that there always seems to be a controversy regarding veteran medical care. During the Bush Jr. administration, squalid conditions were reported in veterans hospitals. Apparently they were then cleaned up.  

Now in Barack Obama's term, we hear reports that dozens or perhaps hundreds or maybe even thousands of veterans were delayed before being able to set an appointment. Apparently significant numbers of veterans died while waiting to either set an appointment, or to be seen after making an appointment.

I was watching David Letterman a night or two ago as he interviewed a highly decorated medal of valor when suddenly the reason hit me as to why these ongoing Veteran Medical care problems may exist. The Letterman medal of valor guest had dived on a grenade to save the soldiers around him. Mission accomplished, except for himself.

I do not recall how many surgeries this soldier went through, but it was around a 100 at the very least. Suddenly I understood the conundrum the military hospitals face on a daily basis. Intake one soldier who gave up so much, and the instinct to give them back their life as much as possible takes over.

Here is where it gets twisted. No matter how one does a military hospital budget, it may be inevitable that 2% of the patients will require 50% or more of the hospital resources. It's very difficult for that fact to be acknowledged by the bean counters and number crunchers and the result is what we get, delays for the many so the deserving few get a chance to live a semi normal life again.

Even if military hospital budgets were doubled, it still could mean that 5% of the patients require 50% of the hospital's resources, which could still mean a waiting period for others who have not been "intaked" yet.

I am very curious if the war profiteer companies ever step up and donate any of their dozens of billions of dollars in profits to help out the military hospitals in the U.S.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Is it too simplistic to correlate a solid U.S. Economy with reduced war activity?

Just going back over the past few presidencies, Is there a correlation between reduced war activity and the U.S. economy? 

Most would agree the economy was the healthiest during Bill Clinton's presidency, and for the most part, Bill Clinton stayed away from war other than the final couple of years of his presidency, and ironically, that is when his economy started to show signs of stalling.

Neither George Bush Senior or Jr. led a sustained economic growth other than having economic indicators drop so low that the rebound could be made to look like a solid economic recovery. The only perceived improvement during the Obama years seems to coincide with reduced troop sizes in war zones.

Then we have way too may wall street investment firms coming up with way too many investment schemes that add nothing to the economy but do allow them to take their cut up front. Ironically Wall Street may re-invest their undeserved profit in ways that can actually ruin the prior investment which still has to run its course, oh the irony of that.

What the media calls an improved economy and what I see as an improved economy are two different things. I see the reduction of non-renewable energy in conjunction with sustained economic activity the ideal goal. The media tends to simply view it as how much stuff got consumed and whether or not the numbers can be spun that increased consumer debt is a good thing because it is based on "consumer confidence".

Imagine if all that war money were here at home, being used for excellent health care for veterans, and perhaps several hundred thousand jobs in renewable energy creation, observation (where to place wind energy and solar cells, and installation.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Republican Impeachment Buzzards keep U.S. imperiled.

The latest conservative impeachment talk concerns the recent five for one prisoner trade with the taliban. Isn't it possible the five for one trade was tied into the upcoming reduction of american troops from Afghanistan? Is it possible the purpose of the prisoner trade was to warn the Taliban via their own returned prisoners that lower american troop totals in Afghanistan could mean more aggressive air and drone attacks, not less?

I don't pretend to know, but isn't it possible that whenever prisoner "trades" are made it is to further some type of line of communication that may benefit all in the future? It's possible right? 

If so, then why is it acceptable for republican blowhard politicians to immediately undermine any military move made by the present democrat administration? The automatic and instant undermining of the administrations actions is the very definition of a terrorist, no?

Maybe if the Republicans weren't still diverting much needed attention elsewhere back to Benghazi, they would have been included in the hostage discussion before it happened. Clearly Republican politicians have become so untrustworthy the president can't confide in them on most issues, and that is the real story behind Benghazi and the five for one prison trade.

And this repetitive cycle just means the next important issue in which republican politicians should be consulted with, will be the next important issue in which they are not consulted with. And the non-visionary republican politicians seem to like it that way since they can simply stay on the sidelines, have no real perspective, then bitch and moan whenever President Obama makes a military decision.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Karl Rove Channels Hill Street Blues for his latest tirade against Hillary Clinton.

Clearly Karl Rove wants "Fresh" when it comes to our 2016 democrat presidential candidates, but can Karl Rove pass the "fresh test" himself? 

Otherwise, what is the point of a rotten headed Rove demanding fresh anything?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

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 ?