Rush Limbaugh says it is imperative that Republican Politicians feel your pain!

Friday, October 8, 2010, 10:42am pacific coast time I heard Rush Limbaugh say to his radio audience that it is imperative that Republican politicians empathize with their constituents. This is code speak for, "I feel your pain", the all time number one Bill Clinton quote that Rush Limbaugh ridiculed a multitude of times on his show when Bill Clinton was president. Rush would even do an impersonation of Bill Clinton while saying "I feel your pain".

Now Rush is saying that empathy is how Republicans can win in November of 2010 and also win back the presidency in 2012.

Not to be outdone, Barack Obama spoke glowingly of the Clinton record from the 90's at a Thursday, Oct. 7th, 2010 Bowie State University speech in Bowie, Md. First, Barack Obama praised the huge surplus Bill Clinton left behind and that the republicans then squandered.

More amazingly, Barack Obama then warned his audience that the Republicans were outspending the democrats by as much as a 7-1 margin in some political races and that the money was coming from secret sources, including both corporate sources AND sources from outside of the country, and that this type of funding must not be allowed in the future. Barack Obama actually stated that we cannot have unknown sources of money manipulating american elections. Yes, Barack Obama actually said this at this speech.

Before Barack Obama gave his speech, while he was reviewing the statements about secret funding sources, was he really able to do it without thinking that he did the exact same thing in 2008, first to defeat Hillary Clinton, then John McCain? When Barack Obama spoke glowingly of Bill Clinton's budget surplus legacy, and he knew that Hillary Clinton would have probably done an even better job, did Barack Obama tingle all over knowing that he had defeated the better candidate?

What type of person can first dismiss another's record, then revere it two years later?

What type of person can first do unethical, illegal funding tactics, then two years openly blame others for doing the same thing?

I was starting to view Barack Obama as a president that simply wanted everything to run through his hands so he could get maximum credit for any resulting success. But the Bowie, Maryland speech has revealed a sociopathic side to Barack Obama that frustrates me for the condescending nature it reveals about our president.

For being such a slim president, Barack Obama sure is willing to pull pilfer anything from the talking points buffet table at any time, for any purpose.

Edit note (I started this article on Friday as draft, but did not finish and publish it until around noon on Saturday, yet the publish date claims I wrote it on Friday.) Google should fix this bug.

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

Oprah Winfrey's Debt Diet, has Oprah become a crafty woman who focuses on the weaknesses of her fans rather than the tyranny of her rich friends.

Click here to see the most current DailyPUMA article.

Over the past year I have started several blogs that focus on the sinister actions of Chase Bank and Jamie Dimon, along with other banking practices and maneuvers that are helping to create new foreclosures at rate of 10,000 foreclosures a day. These Financial Terrorism Warning blogs include Swarm the Banks, Wall Street Change, Parallel Foreclosure, Daily-Protest, Bloggers against Chase Bank, and Robots Against Chase. 

Over the past two years I've written over 1,200 articles about the corrupt democratic party leadership (and yes, I'm a registered democrat), and the corrupt banking industry, and it would not surprise me if both asses have the same head. And I did this while still being an always there for them CareGiver for both of my parents, and their pets.

One thing I've noticed about articles focusing on credit card debt, foreclosures, unfair banking practices and such, is there will always be at least one person in the comments section who blames the debtor.

Oprah Winfrey's debt diet may help self absorbed debtors who can't control their spending habits without help, but the help that Oprah Winfrey is providing comes with a huge price to those who have led honest lives and suffered a huge economic calamity and need a break from the rich banksters.

What Oprah Winfrey has done by profiling self obsessed irresponsible spend what they don't have middle class debtors is divert attention away from her rich bankster friends such as Jamie Dimon of Chase bank.

But it's even worse than that, Oprah Winfrey has now given ammunition to those who respond to financial crisis articles and blame all of the debtors for their woes.

The depth of Oprah Winfrey's self absorbed affair with the well to do, celebrities, and anyone famous, while pretending to feel the pain of her "average american" audience, has become an embarrassment.

What saddens me about Oprah Winfrey's debt diet is that it comes off as intellectually progressive. If you follow Oprah's debt diet advice, you might eventually get out of Debt, but what you won't get is Oprah actually taking on the rich banking elite in this country for making the debt battle much much harder to get out of. Oh wait, that would require Oprah actually standing up to a rich scumbag whom Oprah would rather just fawn over and perhaps keep as her own financial resource.

Hey Oprah, how about you get the banksters to also follow your advice. Maybe you could suggest they not screw over honest americans who are losing their homes and the built up home equity they accrued over the years.

Maybe you could actually have Jamie Dimon on your show, along with other banking elitists, and challenge them to not grab every last nickel, including the ones they don't earn, but just get through deceit and questionable late fee and penalty practices, or changing terms on a million customers and denying them the full benefit of their already offered low interest rate loans, as Jamie Dimon did in 2009.

How bad are banking practices, in 2008, Bank of America paid out less money in interest than they collected in penalties and fees! Jamie Dimon acquired WAMU for 2 cents on the dollar, but refuses to lower the principal on any of his homeowner mortgage accounts. Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Dimon, all from Chicago, can it get any sleazier?

In the future, when you see those snarky replies in the comments section about people who are in debt, you can thank Oprah Winfrey for shining a light on the minority of debtors who fit the wasteful profile that the snarksters refer to.

And don't be surprised if Oprah dines aboard Jamie Dimon's private jet while looking down at all the little people she helped save.

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

Arianna Huffington: Women Leaders Need To Do Things Differently - SVW

Arianna Huffington played a significant role in damaging both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin's 2008 presidential and vice-presidential campaigns. I did an article about the damage back then, you can click here to see it.

Arianna Huffington: Women Leaders Need To Do Things Differently - SVW

Posted using ShareThis

The Hypocrisy of Maria Shriver hosting the "Women's Conference" in Long Beach is astounding.

(Edit update - you can view different sessions from the Women's conference from your home

as podcasts. I presume they are free).

Here is a link to the Long Beach Women's conference.

My question is this. If this event is really important to Maria Shriver, and I think this event was held last year as well, why completely stab in the back a fine candidate like Hillary Clinton in 2008 when you purport to be about elevating women?

If Maria Shriver was not sure that Hillary Clinton was her type of candidate, why not just remain neutral? Why actually campaign against Hillary Clinton the way Maria Shriver did? Why? Why help defeat Hillary Clinton and then put on a women's conference that same year and then the following year and so on? I can think of a few women who instead of remaining neutral during the 2008 democratic campaign, actively campaigned for Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton while claiming to be for women.

There is no forgive and forget in this instance. Maria Shriver purports to be for women while absolutely devaluing a completely credible presidential candidate who was female, and the candidate that Maria Shriver chose over Hillary Clinton WAS AN IMPROPERLY VETTED MALE!

Definitely check out the women's conference. The women's conference appears to be an excellent gathering of women go getters, but it also might not hurt to remind them how disingenuous Maria Shriver's position has become.

Maria Shriver actively being against Hillary Clinton but being for the empowerment of women equals Rush Limbaugh unfairly slamming a talented football player like Donovan McNabe specifically because McNabe is african american, and then afterwards trying to become part owner in a football team.

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

David Letterman owes Bill Clinton an apology, but does David Letterman and CBS owe even more than that?

If we could establish a time line of David Letterman's co-worker trysts and his late night stand up "comedy" routines at the expense of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky during the Clinton presidency, would we not find an absolute level of Letterman hypocrisy that would just make one's jaw drop?

Is it acceptable on any level to tell jokes about another when you yourself are doing the exact same thing but have kept your own indiscretions quiet? Is it acceptable to profit from such activity? Is it legal to profit without at the very least, putting a "disclaimer" on Letterman's show that warns the audience that the joke teller host who is making fun of others does not necessarily imply that the host's morals are any better?

If David Letterman had "come out" during the Clinton Administration and admitted he was doing the same thing as Bill Clinton was accused of doing, would any future jokes about Bill Clinton by David Letterman have had a different result?

Did David Letterman and his parent company, CBS, by having no morality disclaimer broadcast during Letterman's show, commit fraud by not disclosing his own relevant personal behavior when he was actually profiting by ridiculing others for that same behavior? Isn't it fraud to not disclose behavior patterns that might LIMIT the effectiveness of a show's host to make fun of others when the humor might be muted because of their own personal behavior?

If Letterman had admitted he behaved the same as those he regularly made fun of, he still could have told the same jokes, and they may have been funny, however, the audience laughter would have been more squarely directed at David Letterman himself, rather than those named in the joke.

Did not David Letterman and CBS allow the telling of jokes for profit with the implied belief that the joke teller, David Letterman, was above the very behavior he was ridiculing? I think the answer is yes and I wish someone would sue the pants off of them.

And then there's Sarah Palin and Letterman's Verbal Attack on her family...

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

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.