Saturday, April 30, 2011

George Soros says the right thing about todays political landscape after having done the wrong thing in the past.

Please click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

I have been stating over and over and over that Fox cable news and MSNBC cable news have polarized the political landscape in this country by reporting stories from a steadfast right, or unflinching left perspective.

I have also stated over and over again that until a third cable news channel starts reporting news from the moderate liberal position, (aka centrist), which perhaps as many as 50% of the population supports as being the closest to their own political beliefs, the U.S. will simply suffocate themselves in a polarizing us versus them war of words.

Along comes George Soros in a News Max article, who basically says the same thing as I have been saying. Here is a quote from George Soros in the News Max article link above that I find just amazing.

Political extremism is “endangering our open society,” he said. “As I see it, the two sides in the current disputes have each got hold of one half of the truth which they proclaim to be the whole truth.” -George Soros


Yet it was George Soros, and George Soros funded liberal democrat groups that attacked Hillary Clinton while supporting Barack Obama in 2008. George Soros got the guy he wanted in office, yet now he opines that the whores on the left and the whores on the right have all the power and the result is half truths at every step.


Isn't Barack Obama the king of the half truths? Barack Obama has support among Wall Street, yet he also has community based activism support as well, perhaps only a half-truther could accomplish this feat.

So Mr. Soros, put your money where your mouth is and fund a THIRD CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, one that is that neither left, nor right, but one that actually investigates the issues and points out the pro's and cons and perhaps even offers real solutions. And while you're at it, maybe you could apologize to Hillary Clinton for having your minions gang up on her in 2008 and label her polarizing.

Just who is polarizing now, Mr. Soros?

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Has MTV or VH1 EVER broken into their daily scheduled programming to bring storm destruction reports from devastated U.S. cities?

Does MTV and VH1 have the right to lecture the general populace about civil rights, "doing the right thing", supporting change, global warming, green energy, and so on, when they don't have the decency to cut into daily programming shows like Audrina, Mob Wives, and "Made", and bring to their audiences the devastation that many many states have encountered in just the last week!
Who the heck is running MTV and VH1 that they could be so greedy and so self-absorbed that they actually COMPETE with getting the word out about the devastation that has hit so many of our states and small cities in just the past week?
And nice job Barack Obama, bringing up the birth certificate issue NOW, right in the middle of possibly the most deadly and severe cluster of storms in the past 100 years that have hit many, many states in just the past 7 to 10 days.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Breaking News, Barack Obama admits he is not a Natural Born Citizen, hopes media created confusion about being born in Hawaii will conceal real issue.


There is a reason why foreign males who don't move to the United States and then become citizens of the United States, are not supposed to father future presidents of the United States, it's called conflict of interest. It's why political officials of all other countries cannot impregnate a U.S. citizen and then years later have that offspring be eligible to become president or vice president of the United States, unless that political official from another country moves to the United States and then at some point becomes a U.S. Citizen.

Almost 250 years ago the motivation for the Natural Born Citizen rule was most likely to prevent British Army officials from impregnating a female U.S. citizen and then having that child growing up eligible to run for president or vice president of the United States. Our founding fathers feared that the father from a foreign country could hold sway over his offspring and thereby compromise the running of the United States.

Last I remember, almost 250 years ago, MOST, if not all, English Army Officials were caucasian, so it's not racist to apply this same standard to ANY FATHER from ANY OTHER COUNTRY of the world as well.

If however, 250 years ago a British Army official fathered a child with a U.S. citizen, and then that British Army Official moved to the United States and became a United States citizen, this could be considered the after the fact way for a male from another country to father a child with a female U.S. Citizen, and then convert that childs designation from U.S. Citizen to Natural Born citizen.

As far as I know, Natural Born Citizenship guidelines have never been authenticated. In regards to an after the fact Natural Born Citizenship, the question becomes, at what age would a male from another country who had already fathered a child with a U.S. citizen have to A, move to the United States, and B, become a citizen of the United States, to ensure that their offspring could be designated as an after the fact Natural Born citizen?

Most people who discuss natural born citizenship rules believe that the time of birth determines if a newborn is a natural born citizen or not. I disagree, and have coined my own phrase, an after the fact natural born citizen. An after the fact natural born citizen designation REMOVES ALL HINTS OF RACISM since ANY MALE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET could theoretically move to the United States and become a U.S. citizen, even after the birth of their american child, and thereby allow that child to become a Natural Born Citizen.

I think a foreigner does not have to become a U.S. citizen before, during or immediately after a pregnancy if the mother is a U.S. citizen. However, it would be reasonable to assume that at some point before a child reaches their teens, that dad had moved to the United States, and then sometime thereafter, (preferably before their child became an actual adult), would then become a U.S. Citizen. This is what is so frustrating about Barack Obama's situation regarding his own natural born citizenship problem, as time went on Barack Obama's father was distancing himself from the United States, not embracing it.

So even if the natural born citizen rules were even more lax, like, the father would need to become a United States citizen before his son or daughter could run for president, it would not have mattered in the case of Barack Obama's father because he distanced himself from the U.S. and his son, and then passed away.

If Barack Obama's father had at some point moved to the United States, and then at some point there after become a U.S. citizen, I would consider Barack Obama's father to have been a U.S. citizen, and therefore, Barack Obama would have become an after the fact natural born citizen. But that never happened. If Barack Obama's father had at least moved to the United States, that too could be used as an argument for natural born citizen status for Barack Obama.

The actions of Barack Obama's father are basically in complete opposition to what a foreign born father would need to do to ensure that their own offspring would one day be considered an "after the fact" natural born citizen.

Barack Obama's father not only left the United States, but he became a KENYAN POLITICIAN, the absolutely WORST case scenario, even for an after the fact natural born citizenship. Being a politician from ANY COUNTRY who fathers a child with a U.S. citizen would be the one universal rule for a child being a U.S. citizen, but not a Natural Born citizen. Yet in theory, that would not be a deal breaker as long as the child's father eventually came to the United States, and hopefully at some point became a U.S. Citizen.

Barack Obama's contention that simply because his mother was a U.S. Citizen, even a Natural Born U.S. citizen, automatically grants him Natural Born Citizen status in my opinion is in error. Mom's citizenship bought him time, 18 years worth of time??? Even if the timeline to when Dad would need to move to the United States and become a U.S. citizen so that Barack Obama could become an after the fact natural born citizen, SOME timeline should exist.

Barack Obama's inability to connect with main street, referring to many main streeters as gun loving, bitter people, is most likely directly related to not having a father who LIVED in the United States, nor a father who also showed his love for THIS COUNTRY by becoming a U.S. Citizen.

Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, but I do not believe he is a natural born citizen. However, the good news is, his daughters are natural born citizens!

In case you are wondering why Barack Obama threw in everything but the kitchen sink today when he made his announcement about his own birth certificate, I believe it was Barack Obama flinching because he knows he does not meet the real criteria for being either a natural born citizen or an after the fact natural born citizen.

One argument that could be made against a foreign father becoming a U.S. citizen before their offspring can be declared natural born is, what difference does it make to the child if their dad was a U.S. citizen but also a deadbeat dad who was never in the child's life?

This is an excellent question. The answer is, mom and dad have at the very least a physical connection, and possibly an emotional one as well. I'd rather dad at the very least live in the United States and be amenable to becoming a U.S. Citizen if for no other reason than to reduce the possibility of trying to influence the son's political philosophy via the mother. However, a father who lives in the United States would be free to discuss one U.S. political philosophy versus another one.

One could then argue, Even if everything you have written is completely valid, the entire issue of natural born citizenship is an arcane idea that is no longer needed". Maybe yes, maybe no. As I cited above, I think Barack Obama does not connect with main street. Barack Obama appears to have more of an allegiance with a foreign father whom he barely knew, and who was a foreigner, than his own mother.

Just as Barack Obama finished writing his first book in late 1994, his mother was diagnosed with cancer. After visiting Indonesia and possibly Bali to finish writing his first book, and then soon after finding out that his mother had just been diagnosed with cancer, did Barack Obama visit his mother in Hawaii and then stay with her during her final year on this planet as she battled her cancer?

It appears that Barack Obama chose the memory of his foreign father over the real life struggle of her own mother. Maybe things would have gone differently and Mr. Obama would have been there for his mom in her final year on the planet had dad had been living in america, even if he wasn't in Barack's or his mother's life.

Barack Obama's own agenda in the early to mid 90's seems to show what can happen when dad doesn't live in the United States, a unknown dads foreign life is prioritized by Barack Obama over the mother who raised him and now needed him as she battled her cancer.

What about Barack Obama being raised by his grandfather, who was as american as they come? Once again, this just proves that Barack Obama is aware he is not a natural born citizen because he has attempted in the past to say his grandfather was his true father who raised him.

But Barack Obama's actions speak louder than his words. Did Barack Obama write a book about his grandfather slash father or his own mother? No, Barack Obama wrote a book about his foreign FATHER.

Monday, April 25, 2011

If anyone has been personally affected by the horrible storms in North Carolina, Kentucky, and surrounding states, Daily PUMA can share your story.

Having lived both in the Mid West and the West Coast, I've had a chance to compare some of the different types of dangerous weather and environmental tragedies that hit different regions of the country.

Ok, they're all bad, and they're all different. I guess the ones that strike me as the most terrifying are the kind of storms that just recently happened in North Carolina, and then again in Kentucky. Even though earthquakes can potentially be the most dangerous of all, (although floods are no picnics either) there's something about watching something approach your home that is bigger and stronger (such as a hurricane, storm or Tornado) than anything Hollywood has ever concocted that will be on top of you and your home, no ifs and or buts, and then will just move on down the road as if it wasn't personal, that I find possibly the most frightening.

If you want to tell DailyPUMA your story of what you, a relative, or friend of the family went through, please email me at the email address listed at the top of this page and I'll post your story. If you know a blogger who is posting stories and updates, Daily PUMA can create a special section for those blogs as well.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Should PUMA's back any presidential political candidate in 2012?

In a previous article a few months ago I gave my explanation of where PUMA's have gone after the rigged 2008 democratic nomination contest. In this article, I have to ask the question, why are we supporting any presidential political candidate in 2012?

I just don't think it is wise to back any presidential candidate in 2012 because we are presently being polarized to death by the far right and far left cable news channels known as Fox and MSNBC. I have not watched either Fox or MSNBC for more than a total of an hour or two in the past two years.

While I tend to think that Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC, neither Fox nor MSNBC cover important issues from a centrist viewpoint. Fox analyzes MSNBC's position, and distances themselves from it, and MSNBC does the same towards Fox.

The result is what I call news regression, news entrenchment, news polarization. No matter who you may like in 2012, be it Palin, Trump, Romney or Obama, the fact remains that the news outlets that report the news will continue to ignore centrist america, what I call the moderate liberal.

A moderate liberal is a liberal that actually cares about the budget and does not want a handout in exchange for their vote. Moderate Liberals tend to be middle aged and older and are family oriented. if you are one of the 70 million americans taking care of an elderly family member, or one of 15 million americans taking care of a parent with alzheimers, you are probably a moderate liberal.

liberalism in moderation.

Yet liberalism in moderation is NOT what either Fox or MSNBC are about. The result is a massive under representation of what moderate liberal americans want, or are interested in, by both Fox and MSNBC.

If you choose to support any mainstream presidential candidate in 2012, you give your blessing to what happened in 2008 as being "one of those things", and now its time to "move on". I would suggest before you give into the temptation of moving on and supporting a presidential candidate in 2012, you fight for a third cable news channel that places itself exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC, and you say it whenever the issue of politics comes up.

"I'm not supporting any presidential candidate in 2012 until there is a third cable news option that is exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC".

If you don't agree, then you validating the 2008 democratic presidential race without any chance for "change" going forward in 2012.



Thursday, April 14, 2011

Ladder to the Moon by Barack Obama's half sister is a tribute to their mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

One of my biggest pet peeves against Barack Obama was that he was writing his tribute book about his sperm donor father in the early 90's in Bali, even as his mother was being diagnosed and fighting cancer in Hawaii. Barack Obama literally had to fly over where his mother was fighting cancer in Hawaii to go Bali.

I have not been able to find an actual exact Timeline of Barack Obama's book writing in Bali and his mother's battle with cancer in Hawaii, but even if the book was barely finished when Stanley Ann Dunham was first diagnosed with cancer, isn't it odd that a book about his deadbeat and passed father was of such priority that he could not find the time to fight for the life of his still living mother?

Maybe the excuse would be, when Barack Obama was in Bali, his mother had not been diagnosed yet, when the book was finished, then he learned of his mother's conditions, and by then he could not afford the additional time off to be there for his mother.

Ok, I would be able to accept that, assuming it were true, and IF Barack Obama had not OWNED his mother's cancer treatment battle with the insurance companies as if it were his own personal struggle by referring to it during the 2008 democratic presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton, in campaign commercials, and then again in the second debate against John McCain.
It appears that Barack Obama chose to write his book about his deadbeat dad in Bali but then was not there for his mother when she was diagnosed with cancer soon after Barack's book was finished. The press has never asked him about the timing of these two relatively close events in his life.
Would you prioritize writing a tribute book about one of your passed parents and then not personally helping your still living parent in their battle against cancer? Would you then use your own mother's cancer experience, of which it appears you did not participate in, to gain sympathy and votes for your own career?

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The Polarizing Cable News Channels are ruining the United States.

Barack Obama admires Jamie Dimon. Dimon, Winfrey and Obama all have their business roots in Chicago.

It is silly to criticize Jamie Dimon's tactics while liking Barack Obama. Obama's campaign engineered the biggest pre-paid credit card donation swindle ever perpetrated during a presidential campaign.

Wall street wanted Barack Obama in 2008, not Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton has way less wall street puppet strings attached to her than Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton can't win in 2012 because cable news reporting is intentionally decisive, pushing people into either supporting MSNBC and Barack Obama, or Fox News and the republican candidate.

Ironically, there is a huge swath in the middle, called main street, who are Hillary Clinton supporters and who have been disregarded and marginalized.

Until we have a cable news network that is not as polarizing as either Fox or MSNBC, nothing will "change".

Isn't it ironic that polarizing cable news channels were the ones that tried to stick Hillary Clinton with the polarizing label in 2008?

Look no further than the Wisconsin collective bargaining ongoing news story. MSNBC didn't focus on numbers, nor intelligent compromise solutions, (such as collapsing the numerous collective bargaining unions into ONE COLLECTIVE). Fox didn't focus on solutions other than simply eliminating collective bargaining.

In the cadence of Charlie Sheen various sloganeering, the new catch word is, POLARIZING!

Monday, April 11, 2011

American Thinker, Daily Puma hardly knew ye, aka, you suck.

What a vile vile website American Thinker is. The comments section regarding Hillary Clinton are soooo deranged, off you go from Daily PUMA. On top of that, someone from American Thinker actually checked out dailypuma because I put a link to it within my comment that I left in your comments section, but my comment never ran. So whomever reviewed my comment chose not to run it.

bye bye American Thinker, you worthless pile of crap. And your commenters are among the dumbest in the land. If I ever felt Daily PUMA readers were even half as dumb as yours, I'd shut it down. Not only are the HIllary Clinton commenters vile, stupid and depraved people, it's the PERCENTAGE of the comments that were universally squalid that I found most memorable.

How malignant are these commenters at American Thinker in regards to Hillary Clinton? If Hillary Clinton discovered the cure for cancer, those idiots would probably take less than a minute to accuse her of creating cancer in the first place, that's how deranged they are.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Overheard during Seattle Mariners vs Cleveland Indians April 09, 2011 game, top of the 7th, Who should be the next president? Answer, Hillary Clinton.


You had to see it to appreciate it. Before the start of the seventh inning Seattle Mariners vs Cleveland Indians baseball game the roving reporter had a Felix Hernandez bobblehead to give away. The contest between mom and daughter was to name all of the presidents in a row.

The two knew all the presidents and they sang them out in unison in a sort of sing songy way. At the very end, they yelled out Barack Obama very loudly, giddy that they were done.

The reporter then asked them who would be the next president in 2012, and after a relatively short pause, mom says, "Clinton again." Probably referring to Bill's better half. But how can that be when our own cable news media is so polarized to the far left and far right, leaving the vast huge middle of the country unrepresented?


Saturday, April 2, 2011

PUMA's who don't care about the home foreclosure crisis are probably Republicans pretending to be PUMAs.


Almost a full year after their Strategic Default hit piece against homeowners, 60 minutes finally decides to do a piece on the dishonesty of the banks.

The home mortgage issue would have been Hillary Clinton's shining achievement if she could have made it past the corruption of the democratic higher ups, Barack Obama, and Wall Street.

So if you know PUMA's who don't think the home mortgage issue is of importance, they are not real PUMAs, since this was a core Hillary Clinton campaign issue. I recently defriended an alleged well known PUMA who had no time to ever view Daily PUMA, and claimed my Swarm the Banks blog was pointless.

The 60 minutes clip above is EXACTLY why Swarm the Banks exists.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?