It Appears the Best Man for the Job was a Woman, Barack Obama's Daschle Mistake was actually preempted by Nancy Killefer's Decision to step down.

Barack Obama offers Nancy Killefer a newly created position called "federal government's chief performance officer", and she realizes the way to get chief performance is for her to resign because of past payroll tax issues.

Tom Daschle, who was nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, resigns shortly thereafter.

Barack Obama apologizes for not doing a better job of "vetting" Mr. Daschle. Barack Obama's supporters laud Barack's honesty and willingness to take the blame.

Are we to believe that Mr. Daschle was not properly vetted? Really? Or, is it more reasonable to assume that Barack Obama knew about the tax issue, felt it was not that big of a deal, and went ahead with his selection of Tim Daschle? If that is the case, then that means it took the bravery of Nancy Killefer resigning to get Mr. Daschle to see the light and resign as well.

Do I really have to listen to Barack Obama supporters once again cheer Barack Obama for his willingness to take the hit even as they ignore nor thank Nancy Killefer for her willingness to step down before the payroll tax issue grew in scope?

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

I wonder if the issue here is not that laws are being broken, but that these politicians seek to move upward with their careers without apologizing first, and then waiting to see if public opinion will forgive them before they go into the upgrade pool.

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.

Judges Blurring the wrong line regarding Proposition 8.

Excellent Radio discussion on Dec. 15th, 2008 about Prop-8 Protesting Strategies from the John & Ken Show, KFI-640 AM. A MUST LISTEN for anyone involved in Proposition 8.

I think judges are making a mistake by blurring the line between making a donation to a human being, and making a donation to a ballot measure proposition.

Link - Judges rule full donation disclosure is acceptable.

When it comes to donating to a politician, I think donation disclosure makes sense. A donation to a politician can mean an ongoing alliance, so keeping this a secret does not seem ethical. Some political contributors donate to more than one politician, and may have even donated to a politician that didn't become the nominee. These two scenarios help blur the line as to how someone may have voted.

I like blurring the line when it comes to finding out how someone voted simply because our whole voting system is based on the privacy of a voting booth, and frankly, caucus style of voting just doesn't seem to cut it. However, donations made to people should be documentable, it just seems logical to do so.

Regarding donation disclosures and ballot measure propositions, a ballot proposition, once voted on, cannot be approached later on for additional favors. Favors maybe initiated by the people involved in enforcing or spending money as it relates to a proposition, but the proposition itself is not a human being.

Donations made to a proposition is probably going to represent the way that contributor voted on that issue. I've never made a donation to a ballot proposition because after the vote has been tallied, the losing side can try to overturn the result in court. Why would I ever donate money to any proposition ballot measure knowing that the result can be overturned by a judge after the fact, and I don't even get my money back!

I am in favor of voting in the privacy of a voting booth, yet having people know how I voted anyways by how I contributed on a ballot measure seems to supercede the privacy of voting in a voting booth. I've now been given another reason to never donate to any ballot measure in the future.

Prop 8 lost because Gavin Newsome made a short speech in which he stated, "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not".
That is not the way to win friends and influence people. This quote by Newsome was gleefully played over, and over, and over by the proponents of Prop 8. Newsome was against Proposition 8, yet the Pro 8 side used his quote in their ads. I find it ironic that an opposing side can take someone's comment without mentioning in the ad that Newsome was against Prop-8. I sometimes think that the laws are too lax in certain areas of the law when it comes to political advertising.

I wish people would focus on why Prop 8 lost rather than try and witch hunt people who may have been reacting to Gavin's over the top statement, (see youtube video, plus a news story, of Gavin's famous comment, below).

Prop-8 won because they played what I call the Gavin Newsome commercial several hundred times before the Nov. 4, 2008 elections.

The juxtaposition of Gavin Newsome twice stating "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not" bookending a boring but scholarly looking middle section was a powerful one two three punch that certainly swayed many people who hadn't decided which way to vote yet.

This news clip explores the quote heard the world... News Clip about "Whether you like it or not". My opinion that Gavin's sound bite was the difference maker is also held by others in the media. This article includes two such links, one to the news clip, and the John and Ken Radio Show link.

Was it ethical to play the clip of Gavin Newsome over and over and over, when the original speech only happened once? This gets into a very sticky area of freedom of speech. I think it is manipulative in a dishhonest way to take one portion of one speech, and literally play it so many times that people can't stand the clip and mistakenly believe that Gavin Newsome is saying it over and over.

Publicizing ballot measure donation disclosures will just make it harder for future ballot measures to get donations.

Kentucky hit hard by Ice Storm, 700,000 homes have been without power for a few days now.

Here is a link, Kentucky slowly thawing.

I feel badly that somehow, either I missed the news over the past few days about Kentucky's worst ice storm ever, or because of the economy, it being Super Bowl week, and tributes to Barack Obama during the Super Bowl, maybe Kentucky was minimized and that is why I missed it? I didn't mean to turn this into a Barack Obama topic but, did coverage of Kentucky's worst ice storm ever suffer because of the Super Bowl, and tributes to Barack Obama, and bailout talks?

Did Bruce Springstein mention Kentucky during the super bowl half time special, or would that have offended the other countries that watch the super bowl and are having their own problems? Anyways, 100 dollar steaks from Japan celebrating the ridiculous bailout bill for passing gas in the house of representatives where it faced a monopolistic vote is not my idea of a "victory".

Oh yeah, Barack lost Kentucky to Hillary Clinton by a huge, huge margin. No 100 dollar steak for you Kentucky.

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.

The Year in Review by Uncle Jay.

Good News, Check out the No Cussing Club.

For those concerned about the Jon Favreau's and the George Hartwig's of the world, please check out the No Cussing Club If young men don't cuss, they probably are less likely to become "one of the boys."

Is this a Form of Subtle Sexism? Compare these two commericals.

(Edit update - September 15, 2010 - somebody responded to me on youtube and told me the name of the actress is Lisa Horner).

The Tale of two funny televisions commercial actors and how one landed the actor (Kyle Bornheimer) a lead in a television show on CBS called "Worst Week", while the other commericial (for Ikea), apparently landed the just as funny female no such opportunity, even though Ikea is still showing that same commercial two years later.

Now look at this ikea commercial directly below.

Ironically, The Ikea Lady had to show much more physical comedy range than the The Male Actor in the T-Mobile Commercial, yet the T-Mobile commercial landed the male actor a lead in a physical comedy laden television show on CBS called "Worst Week".

What did the unnamed Ikea Lady get? (I couldn't find her name attached to the commercial, that is why she is unnamed)

Does anyone really believe that the unnamed Ikea lady actually had anywhere near as equal a chance for a lead on a TV show as T-Mobile guy had? What T-Mobile guy Kyle Bornheimer did was amazing because he actually transcended his commercial career to get a lead role on an Prime Time television show. Too bad the unnamed lady in the Ikea commercial didn't get the same chance because I think she could have succeeded as well.

The Ikea commercial keeps getting shown and is now over two years old, clearly it is a popular commercial.

Radio Show Featuring Betty Jean Kling.

Click Here to listen. You can also listen while browsing other articles on Daily PUMA.

Mother Shot in the Face by Lodi Man, Media Outrage is Subdued because she was a Mother and Business Owner and NOT a BusinessMAN in a Suit.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FIERCENESS OF LOUISA RICHARDSON-RODAS THAT THE SHOT GUNNER GEORGE HARTWIG WAS UP AGAINST. After Clicking on this link, check out the ABOUT ME TAB located over the green box.
If you know Betty from the FREE ME NOW Blog, she can probably use your thoughts, prayers, and involvement.

PLEASE LEAVE A RESPONSE POST AT Lodi man accused of shooting sister in law. The assailant only got three months on a prior charge against this same family, that is just wrong.

Yes, Louisa Rodas is a business owner APONDPLACE.com, and a mom. But Louisa Rodas was not a businessman in a suit, and the media seems to treat the shot gun shooting with less importance because Louisa Rodas wasn't a man in a suit who was shot.

Please represent on these two additional forum topics, No registration required. Lodi Man accused of shooting sister in law. Woman Critical after Being Shot in the Face.

PUMA BLOGGER'S DAUGHTER SHOT IN THE FACE AND IS IN CRITICAL CONDITION.

(edit update - Jan 25, 2010) You can learn more by clicking here.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FIERCENESS OF LOUISA RICHARDSON-RODAS THAT THE SHOT GUNNER GEORGE HARTWIG WAS UP AGAINST. After Clicking on this link, check out the ABOUT ME TAB located over the green box. If you know Betty from the FREE ME NOW Blog, she can probably use your thoughts, prayers, and involvement.

Is it helpful to call the district attorney's office and ask why the person who shot her daughter in the face only got three months the previous time he terrorized her family, or does that somehow interfere with them doing their job this time? Thoughts?

Please let me know if this is a picture of Louisa. Is this a Picture of Louisa Rodas? If it is I will post it on Daily PUMA.

PLEASE LEAVE A RESPONSE POST AT Lodi man accused of shooting sister in law This jerk only got three months on a prior charge against this same family, that is just wrong.

A Bridge to Everywhere, courtesy of Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich.

While I cringe at Barack Obama spending money on infrastructure projects such as bridges and roads so we can drive our foreign cars on them, I positively tremble when I read on Cannonfire CannonFire (Dec. 11, 2008 "What's at Stake") that Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was also planning on getting federal funding for huge roadway infrastructure projects.

I feel like we are entering the world of double realities. On the one hand, the whole Chicago political scene can be spun as black versus white and that the White Daley regime was being supplanted by a black political caucus that allegedly was beholden to no one. On the other hand, there is the distinct possibility that Barack Obama interacted with a diverse group of politicians, and among them was Blagojevich and his plans for infrastructure projects that Barack Obama seemed keen on promoting from the White House.

Emil Jones seemed to take a huge liking to Barack Obama. If the Daley regime supported Blagojevich, and Emil Jones supported Barack Obama, and they are on opposite sides of the Political fence, then Barack Obama can possibly come out of this whole situation clean. If however, Jones and Daley are interconnected, or Barack and Blagojevich are interconnected, then that could be bad news for Barack Obama.

Could this be a situation where Barack Obama's denial of any involvement with Rod Blagojevich ends up becoming a bigger issue than any interaction that actually occurred?

The "Notorious Bettie Page". Bettie Page Objected to the Word Notorious, and I agree with her, Do You?

Click here for most recent Daily PUMA article.

Bettie Page Passes Away - Link. Bettie Page objected to the documentary title The Notorious Bettie Page. The article quotes Hugh Hefner as saying, Hefner said he last saw Page when he held a screening of "The Notorious Bettie Page" at the Playboy Mansion. He said she objected to the fact that the film referred to her as "notorious," but "we explained to her that it referred to the troubled times she had and was a good way to sell a movie."

If a pin up star who didn't always do as she was told requires the word notorious to help sell video copies of her life story, then how can a well educated female scientist, female doctor, or female athlete's story ever sell?

Was Bettie Page the "notorious" one, or was society "notorious" for requiring such a trashy title to make sure her life story sold video copies? I would suggest a protest over the documentary title "The Notorious Bettie Page" and a renaming. Why? Bettie Page did not feel she was a "notorious" person. No other reason is needed. A woman who did not follow every command or direction from a male dominated society is not "notorious", she is adventurous. The Adventurous Bettie Page. Works for me, how about you?

"Tonight, Ladies and Gentleman, Illinois has VOTED for CHANGE," - Rod Blagojevich, (Upon being Elected Governor of Illinois)) Nov 5, 2002

I found this interesting quote in a USA Today article dated Nov.5th, 2002, "Tonight, ladies and gentleman, Illinois has voted for change," by Rod Blagojevich Meet the author of Change, Rod Blagojevich. Wow. We're back on the Change Gang, Whoa. (with apologies to Chrissy Hinde of the Pretenders).

Let Go My BLAGO, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich taken into Custody by the FBI.

Aren't you just a little bit curious about Mr. Blagojevich's dealings with the Barack Obama camp during the 2008 democratic race? If Barack Obama actually managed to avoid Mr. Blagojevich when Obama had approximately 750 million dollars in his campaign coffers, then I will have to give Barack Obama credit for running a tight ship.

However, if there are some unsavory connections between Barack Obama and Mr. Blagojevich, and they are never divulged, our consititution will never be the same.

Supreme Court Will NOT Review Barack Obama's citizenship. Are background checks for becoming president less restrictive than a blue collar job?

In striking down a review of Barack Obama's citizenship, has the supreme court basically stated that the background check criteria for becoming president is lower than applying for and getting a blue collar job?

Chicago Tribune Barack Obama Citizenship ARTICLE ABOUT AD, You ALL MIGHT WANT TO CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW IMAGE, OVER 2,000 COMMENTS HAVE BEEN LEFT.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO ARTICLE, BELOW THE ARTICLE IS A SHORT AUDIO CLIP OF A RADIO SHOW THAT MR. SCHULZ APPEARED ON AND WORTH LISTENING TO. Below the audio link you can leave a comment. There are over 2,000 comments so far. There is also a Digg button next to the article, you may want to click on it and then decide how to respond.

Sarah Palin attacked again by MSNBC, "MSNBC Watch", how can we make this happen?

Click here to see the most current DailyPUMA article.

I believe the FCC is our biggest hope for reigning in fraudsters like MSNBC. I happened to catch part of David Schusters morning act Dec 02, 2008, when he sort of wings the news as it comes up. (later on he has his own one hour show with a bit more structure to it). 

It looks to me like MSNBC flings their own editorials up on the screen and reports it as news. Schuster gave a big build up to a Sarah Palin interview at the governors convention in which he accused Palin of asking for government entitlements after being against them during the presidential race. It looked to me like Schuster never even saw the clip before they ran it. Schuster introduces the anti Palin viewpoint with a tone in his voice that implies that this is "Sarah being Sarah". 

They run the interview clip of Sarah, it lasts around 1-2 minutes, and there is nothing in it to substantiate Schuster's claim. Schuster actually has to make an amended comment after the Palin clip is run because he KNOWS there is nothing there to substantiate the malicious, slandering build up.The problem is, the damage has been done. People who are sort of watching and not paying attention just sort of roll their eyes and assume it's "another Sarah Palin gaffe". 

Just like many of the other MSNBC initiated "gaffe accusations" against Sarah Palin that have come before, this one is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but MSNBC's attempt to stain Sarah Palin. My theory is that Arianna Huffington was behind this one, using her behind the scene access to try and spin crap against either Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton.

On Schusters show later in the day, the spin has been altered to "the democrats smell blood" surrounding Sarah Palin and "are going in for the kill". Didn't Sarah Palin just help elect a Republican congress person in Georgia? Is this MSNBC's plan, to always try and defile anyone who helps achieve success against a Barack Obama plan or initiative?

What I was taught about being a legal U.S. Citizen...

Please Click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

(Editors note, Feb. 2014 - since the writing of this article I also wrote a more detailed article on my Fair Reflection blog. If Barack Obama's father was not a naturalized citizen, Barack Obama may not be a natural born citizen. However, is it actually a law or belief that our president is not a natural born citizen based on the behavior of a parent post birth ?)

When I was in the 8th or 9th grade, I recall citizenship being explained to us in the following manner, as long as an infant was born on U.S. soil, the infant would automatically be a U.S. Citizen, irrespective of whether or not either parent was a citizen. That's what I was taught, so for me, the Barack Obama citizenship issue has been over my head. I read the citizenship interpretations and all my overtaxed brain can refer to is, was Barack Obama born in Hawaii, or not?

However, right now seems to be an important time in the Barack Obama citizenship issue so I made a special section for those blogs that are covering this issue and have kept it on the top of Daily PUMA (along with the passing of Tanta).

Bill Clinton to Share 200,000 World Wide Foundation Donors to a Campaign that never disclosed it's own Donors.

Wow, Bill Clinton to share 200,000 worldwide foundation donors with Barack Obama. It's like hugging a shark while it feeds on your arm.