A New Breed of "Blog", Madame Secretary, comprised of hundreds of former government employees now out of power, run by Newsweek, Gasp.

I guess operation Blog Swarm is in full run mode. Madame Secretary, a blog grudgingly listed on DailyPUMA, purports to follow everything Hillary. Yet it is also a blog bankrolled by our friends at Newsweek. You know, the rag that has Jonathan Alter at the helm, who regularly appears on Keith Olbermann's show to make fun of people who talk respectfully of Hillary Clinton. PROOF.

Creepy aspects to Madame Secretary include naming where Hillary Clinton is set to go. Normally the news reports where somebody has been, or reports where they are just as it happens. There is a safety aspect to this type of news reporting when it involves politicians. But I guess when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it's ok to telegraph where she may or may not be going several days in advance.

And, I guess it's ok to not only telegraph where Hillary Clinton is going, but also to have ads such as the one just below...
Isn't that special.

There are several title tabs on Madame Secretary, and each tab reveals a whole nother blog, and a whole nother cadre of writers. I found SHADOW GOVERNMENT TAB somewhat insulting, considering that it is close to Arianna Huffington's Shadow Convention in name. Huffington and George Soros propped up the shadow convention several years ago in preparation for their assault on Hillary Clinton in the 2008 elections.

Here is their own, partial description of Shadow Government, In parliamentary democracies, the "shadow government" is a group of like-minded policymakers who have served in government before and who now find themselves outside of it. In that spirit, this is a blog about U.S. foreign policy, written by people who've made it before. Our commentary and analysis will reflect our experience in government and the practical knowledge we've gleaned from it (not always the easy way). We'll discuss foreign policy with an intimate familiarity of the imperfections and complications, the trade-offs and unintended consequences that are a fact of life when dealing with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. And we'll approach the many hard problems facing the United States today with an appreciation for the limits of our nation's power, but also for its enduring potential to shape events for the better.

Whose paying all of these political journalists who used to work in Washington, or still do, to operate this blog? Their annual budget must easily hit several millions of dollars. Um, a little financial disclosure on where the money is coming from for this obviously money losing venture, please.

A possible backlash to the Lilly Ledbetter Law? Does anyone even know what it does?

What if an employer would prefer a male for a job opening because every once in great while, something somewhat heavy or clunky has to be moved and the employer feels more comfortable having a man do it? In the past, the employer would have to weigh that relatively trivial situation against the fact that men were being paid more than women. An employer might say to themselves, I'd rather hire a woman at lower pay than pay more for a man just so that man can lift a heavy box or do some other heavy lifting once a month.

So the new problem could become, if all things are now equal, the man may suddenly have an advantage over a relatively trivial issue. If the employer MUST pay everyone the same, then why not hire the male and get the advantage of having a heavy lifter available in a pinch?

I would have handled the equal pay issue in a different manner. I would have first closed the gap to no more than an initial 10% difference in pay. This in itself is an immediate victory for woman as the pay gap was significantly larger than 10%, perhaps as high as 22%. This 10% difference could only be in place for 3 months, after three months the pay rate would then have to equalize.

Additionally, I would make it illegal for all the men to be paid more than the highest paid woman. So if there were 10 employees, it would be illegal for the five women to be the five lowest paid positions. These ideas would make the pay differences so much closer than it currently is, while also not necessarily giving a male any preference because of perceived greater strength.

Assuming the Lilly LedBetter law actually influences or forces employers to pay their employees equally, (and I'm not sure the initial hype accurately depicted what this law is about), Equal pay may subliminally encourage an employer, all things being equal, to hire a man instead of a woman.

Is MSNBC coaching its anchors to all have the same talking points, is that ethical?

Click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

There is a certain cohesiveness to MSNBC that I find eerie. It seems as if all the on air hosts promote the same talking points all day long. It is as if they all attend a special meeting at the beginning of each day, are told what the talking points of the day are, and then they all follow them.

Some of you may say, "well duh, of course they do that". I would say, unduh, that it is unethical to do that. The promotion of an unbending and synchronized political philosophy that is virtually the same amongst all of the anchors points to a channel that is not a news channel, but a propaganda promotion channel.

Is FoxNews television different? Yes. Fox anchors all have viewpoints that wouldn't really be confused with their fellow anchors, they may primarily be from the conservative viewpoint, but on any specific point, they don't all agree with each other.

MSNBC's coverage of Blagojevich borders on the embarrassing. MSNBC will superficially mention Blagojevich's Canadian prescriptions impeachment charge, then immediately say that there were other impeachment points worthy of impeachment and removal from office. Well, even if there were other more valid impeachment charges, the Canadian Prescription issue should NOT have been one of the charges that was brought forth. MSNBC chose to rationalize the Prescription impeachment charge by saying there were other valid charges, so it didn't matter.

How can anyone think it is sane to charge Blagojevich with impeachment for allowing Illinois residents the ability to get low cost prescriptions from Canada, especially when other state governors have already done it! How can anyone trivialize the effort to give elders free bus rides in those horrible Chicago winters? Just ask MSNBC, they'll gladly ridicule anything and everything that Blagojevich ever did, because they were most likely instructed to do so.

To this day, all MSNBC anchors still insist that John McCain was wrong back in September of 2008 for wanting to stop the debates so that he could focus his attention on the bailout proposals. If anyone were ever to go back over MSNBC's coverage of the original bailout votes, it would reveal some of the all time worst coverage for its slantedness of such a crucial event at such a critical time in our history.

Rather than admit to the world that MSNBC completely botched their coverage of the bailout votes back in September of 2008. MSNBC will forever paint John McCain as the fall guy for treating it as an incredibly important event. It is this kind of MSNBC media group think mind blather that I fear as we go forward as a nation.

Jessica Simpson is in the news for gaining a few pounds, but is that the real story here?

There is linkage to Jessica's past which may have caused her alleged weight gain to become a news story today. When Jessica Simpson was first announced as Daisy Duke of the Dukes of Hazzard movie, her body became her number one ally.

Slow motion shots of Jessica with her bare midrift fully exposed as she slow motion sauntered towards the camera were regularly shown on television, and then in the movie, and were money shots designed to both legitimize Jessica Simpson as a sculpted princess, and create buzz for the Dukes of Hazzard movie at the same time. When the Dukes of Hazzard movie went to DVD, even more slow motion shots of an abful Jessica could be seen in the commercials promoting the Dukes of Hazzard DVD.

Since then, Jessica has been linked with professional football quarterback Tony Romo, another reminder that Jessica is indeed a jock, or a jockette. Jessica used her body to power ahead her movie career, and therefore it becomes inevitable that when there is a change in her physique, it will become news.

I am curious if Jessica ever paid any kind of a significant homage or appreciation to the original Daisy Duke, Catherine Bach. Catherine Bach's performance as Daisy Duke in the original Dukes of Hazzard's television show no doubt helped keep the embers burning all these years. Of all the characters on the original Dukes of Hazzard TV show, perhaps it was Daisy Duke, Boss Hoggs, and Enos that were the most popular characters.

I am pretty sure Catherine Bach, just 25-30 years removed from the original Dukes of Hazzard television series, received a mere pittance of compensation back then compared to what Jessica Simpson received for her part in the movie version of the Dukes of Hazzard. I presume that Catherine Bach was probably not involved in the movie version, other than for a possible opportunistic photo op or two to promote the movie, and Jessica Simpson. It is a bit twisted that the original Daisy Duke can do no better than hype the new Daisy Duke. Dare I suggest that actor reparations are in order?

If Jessica didn't feel it necessary to tithe back to Catherine Bach in any way, (and I don't know if she did or not), then why should I feel sorry for a financial opportunist's weight gain being publicized in the media? Especially when the media plays down Catherine Bach's real contribution involving the creation of the Daisy Duke character.

As time goes on, I believe it's less and less about who is in the news at any given moment in time, and more and more about who is being forgotten. Is the story of Jessica's weight gain the real story here, or is the real story how Catherine Bach blazed a financial trail for Jessica Simpson to strut through. Will Jessica Simpson ever properly thank Catherine Bach for making the Daisy Duke role so memorable that Jessica could make a LOT of money 25 years later?

Catherine Bach, take a bow for helping get Jessica Simpson super rich, I wish there was something in it for you to.

I LIKE BLAGO! BLAGO's Rachel Maddow show interview was spectacular!

Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.

Wow, I really like Blago! Probably the easiest politician to listen to, ever! Blago's quote of Martin Luther King was tremendous.

"We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " -MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

According to Maddow, if Barack Obama raises 10 million dollars to help retire Hillary Clinton's debt, that is not trading services, whereas if Blago tries to get a public benefit by trading the senate seat, that is trading services.

They're the same thing. Well, maybe not exactly the same thing, but close enough.

I think somebody on Barack's side went after Blago because Blago would have made a solid presidential candidate 4 years from now. Blago would have had Iowans eating out of his hand.

How dare Blago try and get free public transportation service for seniors! How dare Blago try and get low cost drugs from Canada for all Illinoians, just like several other governors of other states have already done. How dare he!

According to Maddow, maybe not all 13 charges are valid, but SOME are! Since when is it ok to pad the number of impeachment indictments with the idea that at least one will stick?

IT IS NOT OK TO IMPEACHMENT PAD!

Talk about abuse of power by the Illinois congress. sheesh. The Illinois congress will be more corrupt than ever if they actually think it was ethical to come up with 13 impeachment charges against Blago just to make sure at least one sticks. These are typical, spineless, lawyer politician tactics that employ Dick Cheney buckshot methods to make sure they get at least one charge to stick.

Laughing at Republicans, it's good for the soul from time to time.

I would like to suggest that even though PUMA's may not like Barack Obama, PUMA's don't necessarily need to embrace every Republican rant against Barack Obama, either.

When Barack Obama told the Republicans that "I won" not you, that should have been a PUMA moment to smile at the whiny Republicans who don't seem to understand they lost the election and have yet to accept their fate. The same snotty, snide and sneaky Barack Obama tactics that helped spawn the PUMA movement are now coming home to roost towards the Republicans.

If the Republicans hadn't been so smugly pleased when Hillary Clinton was betrayed by her own party, perhaps they'd be dealing with someone who might not rub them the wrong way as much, Hillary Clinton. (especially if they had outed the ridiculousness of the caucus contest results.)

While Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Barack Obama fails, I would like to be better than Rush and point out the errors that both democrats and republicans will inevitably make, and avoid automatically siding with anybody who opposes Barack Obama.

Super Bowl Bans Infidelity Ad.

Kudos to the National Football League for having and using their control to prevent the same advertiser from running infidelity ads during the Super Bowl. Should I presume that local networks all over the country don't get any local ad time during the super bowl, or if they do, they won't run the infidelity ad, locally? (I purposely haven't mentioned the advertiser to avoid promoting them.)

Several months ago I was watching the Television show Cheaters and almost fell out of my chair when a commercial promoting infidelity was shown. I actually emailed Cheaters and asked them about this apparent conflagration, here was Cheater's response. "

"Alessandro:
Thank you for contacting Cheaters. Cheaters is a nationally and internationally syndicated TV show, which means our ad revenues are split between local stations and ourselves. Cheaters does not control who advertises in the station’s portion of the ad time. Best regards and thanks again, we hope this helps answer your question. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns." end of email message.

It will be interesting to see if the infidelity ad makes it on the air via local commercial programming that presumably is run during the Super-Bowl between the national ads.

Encouraging News about Louisa!

Please see the comments section for Betty Jean's latest message about Louisa.

New Message from Betty Jean Kling about Louisa Rodas

Edit update - Sept. 11, 2010. Here is the latest information on Louisa Rodas and Betty Jean Kling. You can help by writing a letter on Louisas and Betty Jeans behalf.

Edit update - Jan. 27, 2010. Here is a link for updated information on Betty Jean Kling and Louisa Rodas.

Betty's Message is in the comments section directly below.

Ona Kalima's Fantastic YouTube Video, "Burn it Down", Taken Down by YouTube Gestapo.

Ona Kalima's wonderful "Burn it Down" video has been taken down by YouTube. I am looking for the appropriate YouTube contact info to try and get this situation fixed. Having some slobbering, beer swilling emasculated numbskill simply flag the video to stop it from being shown is another form of violence against woman.

Here is Ona Kalima's response to my offer to try and help her get the video back up on YouTube, "Thank you for writing to me. I am in the middle of moving, but was getting ready to write to you for help. I received an email that stated that my video had been removed for violating the community guidelines. I looked to the guidelines and couldn't see any I had violated. HELP! We had gotten up to nearly 7,000 views and now we have to start from scratch. I was starting to receive a lot of hate-oriented comments about being a "communist dyke" and stuff like that--what do you think??"

Any suggestions on who to contact at YouTube would be greatly appreciated. Please leave them in the comments section or send them to me at contact@dailypuma.com

Edit Update, here is the info

Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Gasp, I never thought I'd say that.

Even though I am involved with DailyPUMA, I have been one of those PUMA's who thought the whole Barack Obama Citizenship issue was a non issue. I was convinced that since Barack Obama was born on US soil, he IS A US CITIZEN. I had no idea what natural born citizen meant, I thought it was just some foofy phrase full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But then I read the wikipedia natural born citizen, entry. It took me a few readings spread out over a couple of days for me to understand what natural born citizen meant. Our founding FATHERS (with my apologies to those of American Indian descent) did not want american born citizens eligible to become president if their parents (actually just the father) were not at the very least naturalized citizens of the United States.

A child born to foreigners on American soil would still be a naturalized citizen, but the child would not be a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be either president or vice-president. Should this child grow up and have children with another US citizen, those children would be natural born. This is all very logical. Natural Born means the birth is a natural result of two naturalized citizens living in the United States and then having a child.

But what if only one parent is a Naturalized US citizen? Does it matter which parent is a naturalized US citizen when it comes to determining if a child born on US soil or territories is either a naturalized citizen, or, a natural born citizen? According to the World Book 1962 edition, Before 1922, a women's citizenship usually changed with that of her husband. Ergo, the founding Fathers were referring to the father being a Naturalized US citizen for his son or daughter to be a natural born citizen.

when the constitution was established the Founding FATHERS didn't seem to think that women were completely equal to men. Our Founding FATHERS accepted slavery and did not allow slaves or women the right to vote, a sign they were being very protective of who could vote on important issues such as the presidential race.

Wikipedia presents an interesting case study...

Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, might have been born in Canada.[21] This was never demonstrated by his political opponents, although they raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign. He was born to a U.S.-citizen mother and a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot.

The key to this passage is

"a father from Ireland who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen."

Even though Chester Garfield's mother was already a US naturalized citizen, it wasn't until Garfield's father became naturalized that Chester Arthur could lay claim to being a natural born citizen.

If Chester Arthur was born in the United States, but his father had never become a US citizen, Chester Arthur would NOT have been eligible to BE (not run for, but be) either president or vice president of the United States irrespective of his mother's citizenship.

While objections were being raised over where Chester Arthur was born, the biggest issue appears to be establishing who the heck his father's allegiance/citizenship was with. This is key to the entire issue. If Dad's citizenship matters in determining natural born status for Chester Arthur even when Arthur's mother was a U.S. citizen, then it also matters when defining Barack Obama's citizenship status as well.

Don't think for a minute that if a foreigner came to America, implanted his seed in an american female naturalized citizen, and then left after a couple of years without ever establishing any kind of a bond or loyalty to the United States, that our founding FATHERS would consider that child a natural born citizen. The child would be a naturalized citizen, but not a natural born citizen.

Otherwise, were Osama Bin Laden to sneak into the U.S. and impregnant a US naturalized female, the child could grow up to be president one day, the natural born citizen law was put into effect by our founding fathers to prevent men who were not loyal nor living in the United States from fathering children who could one day be president.

Barack Obama IS a naturalized citizen, he is NOT a natural born citizen because of his father lack of naturalized citizenship.

Isn't it ironic that in the mid 90's Barack Obama himself appears to have ignored his dying mother so he could promote his political career and also fly to Bali to finish his long delayed first book about his sperm donor father. Yet now Barack Obama must COMPLETELY depend on his mummy's citizenship in an effort to declare himself a natural born citizen.

Not only did Barack Obama Sr. never become a US citizen, Barack Obama Sr. would eventually become a Kenyan Political consultant, which would absolutely result in Barack Obama NOT being eligible for natural born citizenship. Political operatives from other countries CANNOT create a natural born citizen in the United States irrespective of the mothers U.S. natural citizenship, they can however help create a naturalized citizen of the United States who in turn can birth natural born citizens..

The Barack Obama "Bro's before Ho's" unofficial campaign theme should be extinguished by the fact that Barack Obama's father was NOT a naturalized US citizen and therefore Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen, a fact that should elicit some chuckling from Alice Walker and other politicians whom in the past have been disqualified from competing against Barack Obama, by Barack Obama for technical reasons far less egregious than not being a natural born citizen.

Lets just hope the Supreme Court is not afraid to do the right and constitutionally lawful thing before Barack Obama is sworn into office.

Are there any US presidents whose father was NOT a naturalized U.S. citizen? If there have not been any presidents prior to Barack Obama who had a non naturalized U.S. citizen for a father, than Barack Obama's father would be the first, and would lend credence to the idea that clearly Barack Obama IS a naturalized citizen but NOT a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be either president or vice president of the United States of America.