Arianna Huffington's new nickname for Barack Obama, The BankCentric Kid, and She's Right, for a Change, ahem.

For the past several weeks, I have had an uneasy feeling about all of those "meetings" Barack Obama has had with Wall Street Bankers and the financial "stall warts" that really don't relate to US.

JOHN ZIEGLER ACROSS AMERICA TOUR
CLICK HERE TO SEE MEDIA MALPRACTICE SCHEDULE

I've never quite felt comfortable with Barack Obama's ability to connect with the everyday person during last year's election because Obama also relied on the corporate elite banker to win the white house. These two groups couldn't be more polar opposite and don't relate to each other.

I do believe Barack Obama deserves a year before he is judged. However, I keep seeing the same type of pattern emerging that makes me wonder if it is going to be pointless to wait a year before judging.

Passing a heavy handed bailout package that has no support at all from the other major political party is what I call a forfeit victory. The other side didn't have enough players to compete effectively, so the game is called without being played and is called a forfeit victory.

WHO CELEBRATES A FORFEIT VICTORY?

In sports, the winning side must be very careful if they choose to celebrate a forfeit victory. In some baseball competitions, a team can get a forfeit victory by being ahead by either 10 or 15 runs. The winner is wise to not openly gloat about their "mercy rule" victory in front of the losing team and instead may wait until later, just as Barack Obama did after the bailout bill passed and celebrated at the white house. However...

If the other side did not have enough players to compete at the start of the game, this too can be called a forfeit victory. I can pretty much guarantee that NOBODY celebrates a forfeit win when the other side can't even field enough players at the start of the game.

When it came to the passage of the bailout bills, one could call that a forfeit victory as well as the Republicans could not even field enough congress people to prevent a "mercy rule" victory.

Barack Obama celebrated his bailout bill mercy rule victories at a white house party replete with 100 dollar a pound wagyu steaks imported from Japan. Welcome to Barack Obama's world, where celebrating a slam dunk victory when the other side could not even field enough players, is a way of life. Not much different than when Barack Obama had his opponents disqualified for technical reasons in past political races. The patterns seem to remain the same and point to someone who thinks he is growing even as he performs the same old tricks he always has.

While Media Matters disputed the 150-170 million dollar estimated expenditures for Barack Obama's Inauguration, was it really necessary to spend that much money while people were actually freezing to death in their homes across the country? What if Barack Obama had budgeted 150 million for the Inauguration, then practiced his budget cutting skills and cut his own inauguration budget to 75 million, and then used some of the saved money to pay the heating bills of people who instead froze to death?

Wouldn't that have sent a clear and loud message that Barack Obama was really going to "change" things? Wouldn't he have instantly mobilized and even won over some of his critics if he could have kept his inauguration budget to one dollar lower than the last inauguration?

Now Arianna Huffington, who IS HILLARY CLINTON'S BIGGEST NEMESIS on the planet, is calling Barack Obama and his administration a bankcentric driven team, and she doesn't like it one bit. Neither does George Soros. Barack Obama's team of rivals seems to be in the habit of looking for the next forfeit in which they can unanimously declare a victory and then celebrate with 100 dollar wagyu steaks. It appears they don't even buy their victory steaks from a US company. Wow.

The latest evidence of Barack Obama's next forfeit victory was his recent statement that little cracks of light are shining through the economic gloom as Wall Street indicators begin to brighten...even as the credit card companies are wreaking havoc on millions of customers who have stellar credit and payment histories!

When the credit card companies begin to steal frequent flyer miles from their most loyal and trustworthy customers, and when the credit card companies begin to increase monthly minimum payments by 150% on their customers who practice smart borrowing habits, can one really state that the economic gloomy clouds are lifting?

Perhaps the better question is, for whom are the gloomy economic clouds lifitng? Certainly not for the almost 2 million Chase bank customers who suddenly have to come up with as much as 500 dollars a month for a credit card bill they have never been late paying in the past or they will lose their super-low interest rate loan.

It seems to me if you believe in the everyday person Mr. President, and feel their pain, (ahem), you would want to harness those people's expectations and enthusiasm and guide them into creating their own success. Instead, I get the sense that the everyday person is really there to feed Barack Obama's world, and not the other way around.

Did you know that you You may be a Toxic Asset and not even know it! The reality that any american who accepted a low interest "until the loan was paid off" credit card offer from Chase Bank and other banks may now been labeled a toxic asset! These customers with low interest loan rates are being isolated for eradication by the credit card companies and is ANOTHER example of a Barack Obama team of rivals forfeit victory. The destruction of these smart consumers now know as toxic assets will generate more profit for the credit card companies as their credit rating gets slashed, thereby ensuring they pay higher interest rates on their debts, which creates more value on Wall Street. Is this the way banks are to operate so Barack Obama can then state that the economic clouds are lifting?

The amount of trustworthy credit card customers who were offered life of the loan, low interest credit card rates is relatively small, perhaps just a couple of million of customers who still have these great rates intact. Yet the bankers can't wait to destroy these customer's credit rating by raising their monthly minimum payment from 2% to 5%, a 150% increase above and beyond what they are already paying, with no opt out clause for the consumer!

If Barack Obama believes that labeling credit card customers with stellar payment histories "toxic assets" as one key to fixing the economy, then that is not the type of economy that needs fixing.

To Arianna Huffington, just what was in it for you to elect the "BankCentric Kid" in the first place since you now condemn his BankCentric approach?

Six Simple Ideas to help people, the economy, and reduce foreclosures.

1. All Renters should be allowed to fully deduct their yearly rent charges on their income tax. The renter's "deduction / savings" would automatically be deposited into a 4% interest bearing account that could be spent on education, medical emergencies / insurance, or used towards a down payment on a home.

2. Instantly reduce ALL primary home mortgages to a Fixed 4% interest rate.

3. Send Full Tax Disclosure statements to all tax payers that calculate and reveal the SUM TOTAL of all the taxes they paid throughout the prior year.

4. Reduce interest rate charges on ALL credit card debt that is older than 1.5 years to zero percent for those that can keep on making their monthly payments.

5. An Additional credit card incentive, pay twice the monthly minimum due and ALL INTEREST RATE CHARGES FOR THAT MONTH ARE WAIVED.

5. Make Tax Refund Checks instantly depositable into special savings accounts that pay 4%, allow citizens the ability to deposit a matching amount as well, don't tax the interest from this account.

6. Make balloon mortgages illegal, instead, have the monthly mortgage slowly inflate, even if it is a month by month increase, have it be such a small amount that the mortgage payer can afford the increases for a few years after the increases have started.

The Bailout Noise and Stimulus Package Succeeds in Obfuscating the Real Heart of the Matter.

Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.

Barack Obama wants to reprise the role of the Grinch as he throws 1/2 trillion dollars from his sleigh (not counting tax cuts), back to the very people who were robbed in the first place.

Oh wait a minute, the Grinch did a much better job of returning the stolen goods to those who actually were robbed. I suppose one could say that the robbery happened under George Bush, and that Barack Obama is just picking up the pieces and "redistributing" the lost wealth as best he can.

Whatever your view of the sub-prime mortgages that first fueled, then fooled, then unspooled the economy, the one thing that stands out, and that is conveniently ignored by the elite of our society is...overnight increases in home mortgage payments that rise more than 10% are unethical, will, and did crash & burn the economy.

Instead of sub prime mortgage programs that wildly spike at the five year mark, what if the homeowners monthly payment started going up at the five year mark by just one percent (not the interest rate, but the monthly payment plus one percent, then the next month the monthly payment plus 2 percent) each month when the subprime loans vested after five years? What would have happened? Customers would have had their own built in "bailout plan" in the form of TIME.

If subprime loans SLOWLY ESCALATED the customer would have had PLENTY of TIME to sell their home if they found they could not keep up with the increasing payments.

Rather than force homeowners out of their home practically overnight, the homeowner could easily have had another six months to five years to sell their home WHILE STILL MAKING THEIR MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO THE BANKS!

Sub-prime borrowers would have made educated guesses as to how long they could afford their slowly escalating mortgages, and would have been much more likely to sell their homes in a timely fashion without being desperate when they did it. Just as importantly, the homeowner would have continued making their payments. Instead, as structured, the sub prime mortgage five year spike resulted in many homeowners simply giving up and even walking away from the home.

A SLOW ESCALATION in the monthly mortgage payment would have been a more responsible method for both stimulating the economy without it collapsing almost overnight. I believe somebody should go on trial over the design of the sub-prime mortgage program. Millions of consumers in the US and elsewhere had their sub-prime loans converted to foreclosure simply because the overnight price escalation was an abomination they could not afford.

Homeowners who bought into sub prime loans, in many instances were lured there by bankers and other money people who told them they would be foolish to not invest in a home purchase if the cost to own was not that much higher than renting. Add in the lure of rising home property values, and in most instances this was no different than entrapment.

Yes, it is possible that the sub prime mortgage industry was a plot to first falsely escalate both the economy and real estate values, and then cause the almost immediate foreclosure and LOSS of EQUITY to practically everybody in the country. Meanwhile, Credit Card Debt now remains at a record all time high as a ratio of credit card debt to total home equity in the United States. The banks appear to have won every which way even as they clamored for more bailout money.

The banks have really made out a lot better than the media tends to report. There seems to be a latent desire to scarlet letter law abiding citizens so they can be taxed and charged excessively in the future,because of past sub-prime mortgage failures. "Oh, you had a subprime loan that turned into a foreclosure? Well, you'll have to pay a penalty in the future for our fraudulent and unfair subprime loan scam that heavily contributed to your practically overnight foreclosure in the past".

Will anybody enact a law that limits how quickly a home mortgage payment can escalate from one month to the next? The sub prime loan swindlers not only got away with the past sub prime mortgage scam, they also have been given bailout money for the next great swindle as well, and the consumers that were victimized by the sub-prime loan received a scarlet letter stamped on their forehead that will cost them dearly the next time they attempt to purchase a home or buy a car.

Taking all the fun out of Stimulation, even when we're still paying for it anyways.

It just dawned on me what bugs me most about the stimulus package. I would much rather see congress give out 300, three billion dollar stimulus checks over a years time, then do it all at once. Suddenly the flaw of the stimulus program is exposed.

300, three billion dollar stimulus checks would be the equivalent of two a day if we factor in how many days a year congress is actually in session. Um, maybe even three a day! Clearly it would take congress a week to two weeks to approve each 3 billion dollar check, and if one factors in that some bills won't be approved right away, we see that congress can only give away so much money, so fast, and do it in a responsible fashion.

Why can't all the stimulee's out there make a case as to why their program deserves immediate attention. and money? Why can't all the projects that might be eligible for funding get their project in order in a coherent, realistic and rapid manner as soon as possible so they can get their cut? Why can't stimulus equal incentive?

Are we possibly headed for a situation where the government will be so anxious to hand out money that they will practically be begging organizations to take the money and run? We should be grateful that car sales are down 40%. Why do we want people buying old school gasoline technology when we should be spending money fast tracking lighter weight transportation that also converts the suns rays to battery power?

I am intrigued by the UCLA plastics / photovoltaic research currently going on. The UCLA photo voltaic plastics research program could actually be a cornerstone towards any new breakthrough in weaning americans off of gasoline.

People need to survive on less money right now so that science and industry can maneuver society towards superior modes of transportation. This is why allocating all of that stimulus money all at once is not the way to go. Let society come forward with their proposals. Governments need to call a time out when it comes to taxation and interest rate charges being assessed on their own citizens.

Instead of figuring out ways to loan citizens more money, lets figure out ways to get people to reduce the debt they already owe without just writing it off as a bad debt. Let the people of this country help guard the stimulus package money. Calling a credit card interest rate time out for all americans interested in paying down their debt would require that bankers sit on their assets and not continue to charge outrageous interest rates on the one trillion in credit card debt.

Perhaps UCLA comes forward and asks for 250 million dollars in research for their photo voltaic plastics research projects. Would it be so bad to hire two hundred and fifty out of work people, pay them a stipend of 3,000 a month, and have their job be to monitor how that 250 million dollars is being spent? Some may say, well that's only one new job per million dollars. Wrong, that is just one job to help supervise the spending of each million dollars.

UCLA would be spending to purchase materials, conduct tests, have prototypes made, etc. The end result could be closer to one new job for every 100,000 dollars spent. That is probably an acceptable ratio, and the end result will then feed Michigan with entire new types of vehicles to build.

This is the type of cross pollination that needs to be going on. Use the Western Sun to accelerate plastic photovoltaic research, then use that technology in Michigan to create jobs for the new age of cars. Trying to revive a tired old economic system all at once will reduce money that could be going towards real progess.

Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe Absolve Hillary Clinton For her Iraq War Vote without even realizing it, Amazing.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Richard Wolfe of Newsweek engaged in an incredible exchange during Keitho's Friday night show. (Feb. 06, 2009) The hidden message behind their discourse was so profoundly counter to the harrassment that they lathered on Hillary Clinton during the democratic primary race least year, right around the first of February of 2008.

Here is the excerpt that DailyPUMA has transcribed from last nights show. After you read it the first time, I'll explain how to decode the hidden message lurking within.

Keith Olbermann

Time to call in our own political analyst, Richard Wolfe. Good Evening Richard.

Richard Wolfe

Good Evening Keith.

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the economic numbers, which we just saw today those terrible unemployment numbers. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be unhappy, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of spending is gonna be inthere, but, in the end, the economic pressure, the political pressure from this president is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with this bill. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.  - END OF QUOTE

----------------------------------

Mr. Wolfe is basically saying that the democratic senators really have no choice regarding the stimulus package vote, "whether they like it or not, it's gonna happen". Now, think back to the possibly paid off protestors during last years democratic presidential campaign that would follow Hillary Clinton around and scream at her for voting yes for the war in Iraq.

I'm going to take Richard Wolfe's own words, and by REPLACING JUST A HANDFUL OF THEM, the comment sounds exactly like justification for supporting George Bush going to war in Iraq.

----------------------------------

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe's comments, when applied to the vote on the Iraq War.

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the ongoing terrorism threat, which we just saw those terrible numbers, 3000 dead. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be nervous, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of the war plan is in there, but, in the end, the pressure to stop terrorism before it comes to the U.S. again, the political pressure from president Bush is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with the Iraq war vote. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.

-------------------------------------------end of slightly altered quote.

I barely changed the passage, yet word for word it could have been used by Wolfe to describe why the Iraq war vote was going to pass.

One could try and argue that, well, Wolfe is talking about the party that is in power, that they are the ones in lock step with their own president. However, that argument falls apart because George Bush was saying, back me, we are in danger of another act like the World Trade center collapse if we don't fight the war outside of the United States. Factor in the argument that the troops in Afghanistan could be outflanked if Iraq was ignored, and the democrats were basically there to support the president. 

Blaming Hillary Clinton for George Bush's war was lame. Has a senator ever stopped a war? But suddenly the first woman candidate can only run and be accepted if she had stopped George Bush's war? What kind of a load is that?

Olbermann and Wolfe chastized Hillary Clinton for voting yes on the war in Iraq during the early stages of the 2008 democratic campaign race and used it as a reason why she could not be president of the United States. 

This was just another in a series of planned out anti Hillary smokescreens to discredit her campaign. As more and more of these plots come to light, it sure looks like a planned conspiracy from within the democratic party and the media to elevate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Will we ever find out if any of those anti Hillary protestors who claimed she could not be president because of her yes vote on the war on Iraq, were paid off? Olbermann and Wolfe sure appear to have been.

Fixing Infrastructure DOES NOT stimulate the economy, it actually does the opposite.

When it comes to "infrastructure" spending, unless a road, bridge, electrical line, or sewage system's collapse is imminent, not spending on infrastructure can actually stimulate the economy faster.

Instead of government prematurely fixing infrastructure, let the private sector know which potholes are not going to be filled so private investors can invest in alignment shops, tire stores, car repair bays, and build the repair shops on both sides of the potholes. Even rims and hubcap places will experience terrific economic stimulation if infrastructure is just left as is and assuming general safety is not being compromised. This will save the government billions on unnecessary infrastructure repairs, and many many new car repair businesses will crop up as a result of LESS infrastructure spending.

One key to a useful stimulus program is to stimulate the consumer to get the consumer to want to pay to fix things that they own that break, including their cars. Another aspect to not going crazy on infrastructure repair is to motivate the consumer to go out and buy a new, "stronger car" that comes with a pothole protection plan. (I bet some car manufacturer will now come up with such a program)

Flying road debris may also stimulate cars into being repainted more often. The less roads that are fixed the more overall stimulation is created, it's how the west was won.

The key to capitalism has never been about efficiency, it's always been about filling the needs of people in need. If we prematurely fix roads and bridges while they still work, we are just increasing the country's long term debt via this bailout bill while simultaneously hurting all aspects of auto maintenance and auto manufacturing.

Better roads mean people's cars will last much much longer than they currently do. Plus, those extra automobile fix it shops that were going to be built near the potholes, the people those new businesses were going to employ, and the taxes that these businesses were all going to pay, never happened because all the roads were fixed instead.

One pothole making machine can do a whole lot more economic stimulating than one hundred construction people fixing an unbroken road ever could.

"But, but, you can't be serious". Well, consider this a "Modern Proposal".

Assuming that infrastructure repair means the timely maintenance of roadways, bridges, electrical and sewage lines and has been done on an annual basis following a logical maintenance schedule, than it really should be business as usual and no stimulus program is needed for infrastructure at all....

....unless, the overall rate of yearly infrastructure deterioration has been occurring at a much greater rate than it was being repaired all along???

If the government is behind on its infrastructure repair maintenance schedule AND the economy is tanking as well, then clearly the government didn't spend wisely over the past few decades on infrastructure, and instead diverted infrastructure funds to pad their own pet projects in ways we'll never know. "If you don't have the money to do infrastructure right the first time, how are you going to have the money to do infrastructure correctly, later?" I would suggest that using taxpayer money to give roadways a new coat of asphalt before it is necessary, is not a way to stimulate the economy.

Fixing only the neediest bridges and roads is all that is needed for infrastructure, and that infrastructure money should already have been allocated within the yearly budget anyways. "What, you mean money that was supposed to go to annual infrastructure maintenance was being diverted to other projects? Really???" So the government now wants to borrow even more money to do the work that should have been being done all along anyways???

Just who wants to stimulate a bunch of politicians now, when it appears they have used prior years budgets to stimulate their own needs rather than fix infrastructure at the proper yearly maintenance level? I don't.

I hope you can understand that as silly as this blog article seems, everything in it is the truth, and that is why we have a MUCH BIGGER problem related to how to run a worldwide economy without it being stimulated by wasteful spending and inefficiency.

Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders (Independent) Vermont, let the DailyPUMA cat out of the bag.

Update - April 11, 2016. The reason I do not support Bernie Sanders in 2016 is in the seven years since this article was first written I don't think he ever really came up with anything that would actually help consumers reduce their own debt. Instead Mr. Sanders railed against Wall Street when the more viable solution was to help consumers struggling to get out of debt.   End of Update.

I have predicted for the last two years that the economy was going to tank, I even wrote two websites over two years ago warning of the theft of money from the american consumer by the Banks and Wall Street. Credit-Card-Cap.com and Credit-Protector.com

Both Websites expose financial methods that loaning institutions have used to rob americans of billions upon billions of dollars.

Tonight (February 3rd, 2009), Rachel Maddow had Bernie Sanders on, a Vermont INDEPENDENT congressman who said something of real substance.

Here is the transcript of a crucial part of the Rachel Maddow, Bernie Sanders interview. I personally transcribed it, please link to it if you like (versus just cutting and pasting it) as it took quite a while to transcribe.

Rachel Maddow

If this executive pay cut can be done well, can be done without loopholes and it works, what's next on the agenda? Do you think in terms of making sure that the bailout money that is already committed, because the bailout money is already outflowing, that it should, can be used in a less exploitive, less immoral way?

Senator Bernie Sanders
Well Rachel, this is the problem with this issue, is, it is so big, that nobody can get their hands on it. It is not just 700 billion dollars, as you know the fed has lent out 2.5 trillion dollars. The president is probably going to ask for more top money.

The fed, we think, is going to lend out trillions more. So what we need to do, among many other things, is we need to figure out a way that we do more than get back to where we were a couple of years ago, by making the institutions stable.

If the taxpayers of this country are putting such a huge amount of money into financial institutions, we need financial institutions that are gonna be beholden to the needs of ordinary americans and not go back to where we were... (as in a couple years ago.)

For example, Just one example. Right now, we're bailing out banks which are charging american taxpayers 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their credit cards. Does that make sense to anybody?

We're giving banks money and they're not telling us how their spending it. We're trying to loosen up credit in america, they're not doing it.

Sanders went on to talk about actually prosecuting the richest people on the planet who may have performed misdeeds that have led to the current situation, and wondered if the justice department was up to the task prosecuting those who are culpable.

Now, I have been advocating an interest free paydown of all credit card debt on my WallStreetChange blog. Bernie Sanders has just said the exact same thing I have been saying about credit card debt. Credit Card Interest charges are suffocating the life support out of the economy and it makes no sense to give the banks more money if they cannot pass the savings on to the consumer in any way.

Barack Obama needs to be funding research and completion of photovoltaic plastics which would do two things at the same time. Photovoltaic plastics lighten the weight of all cargo carriers that travel by ground or water, which instantly improves the efficiency of any battery powered systems because of the lighter weight. Plus, the photovoltaic technology imbedded into the plastic means that the cargo carriers are actually rergenerating part of their own energy even as they travel! Because the carrier's weight has been reduced, whatever is regenerated will power the carrier that much farther.

Let the consumer sweat the smaller stuff. The one trillion dollars in credit card debt is producing 250 billion dollars a year in new interest charges. The republicans want a huge tax cut, the democrats want to give money out, those two ideas merge together if the consumer is given a reasonable way to pay down their own debts via zero percent credit card interest rates to those who desire to pay down their debt.

The Nuttiness of MSNBC Exposed.

Click here to see the most current DailyPUMA article.

When John McCain wanted to cancel the first presidential debate and go to Washington so he could be involved in the design of the first bailout bill, MSNBC accused John McCain of using the bailout bill as a "diversion" to avoid debating Barack Obama.

The day the first bailout bill was to be voted on by Congress, MSNBC's position was that the bailout bill was just supposed to pass. Instead of objectively reporting about the bailout bill congressional vote, MSNBC openly lobbied that the bailout bill WAS SUPPOSED to PASS or there would be catastrophic consequences.

When the first Bailout Bill vote failed, MSNBC accused John McCain of not being able to deliver any votes towards the PASSAGE of the first vote on the bailout bill. This despite the fact that americans were calling in 20-1 AGAINST the Bailout Bill. MSNBC was tell dictating how John McCain should vote or risk being ridiculed on air!

When the second bailout bill passed, MSNBC portrayed Barack Obama as scholarly and intelligent and "working the phones" behind the scenes for its passage.

At one point, MSNBC promoted a ridiculously unscientific hastily put together automated phone poll that showed an overwhelming amount of americans felt the candidates should debate and NOT use the bailout bill as an excuse to cancel the first debate. MSNBC flogged this quickie phone poll over John McCain's head as "proof" that John McCain was afraid to debate Barack Obama when the public wanted it.

Based on John McCain's statement that McCain wanted to cancel the first debate and go to Washington and deal with the bailout bill, MSNBC set up John McCain to be mercilessly flogged no matter what McCain did next. When John McCain acquiesced to the MSNBC led pressure to not cancel the first debate, McCain was then accused by MSNBC of being a flip flopper for going to the first debate!

Ed Rendell and a few other top democratic officials created the same talking points that John McCain's "flip flopping" proved he couldn't run the country. It was as if MSNBC and company had shared a Destroy John McCain playbook and were reciting the same lines.

Now its 7 weeks later, and I witness Rachel Maddow on her show last night "incensed" that the bailout bill was rushed. YOU RUSHED IT! YOU, Olbermann, Matthews, Schuster, Contessa Brewer, ALL OF YOU RUSHED the PASSAGE of the BAILOUT BILL DURING YOUR BROADCASTS and USED IT AS A POLITICAL COMMENTARY TOOL against John McCain.

On practically a daily basis, I believe Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Schuster, Gregory, and Brewer blur the line between political COMMENTARY and NEWS reporting, I call it SPEWS.

MSNBC perpetually spews forth their commentary blather while masquerading it as news.

Until there is a big fat COMMENTARY splattered on the television screen for most of MSNBC's daily broadcast, MSNBC will continue to browbeat Women Politicians and anyone who is not for Barack Obama, while pretending they are just reporting the news.

I believe it is going to take intelligent filings with the FCC to reign MSNBC in.