Mistress cut out of will | ajc.com

Mistress cut out of will | ajc.com

Was Ann Melican treated fairly when a judge cut her out of Harvey Strother will? Harvey Strother searched out Anne Melican after Harvey's previous mistress died. To compare Ms. Melican to someone like Anna Nicole Smith is ridiculous. Anna Nicole Smith used her exotic dancing to lure an 88 year old man into her life, in this instance Harvey Strother appears to have lured Anne Melican into his life by crying into her bosom over the death of his previous mistress.

For the judge to cut Melican out of a very substantial will that had enough for everybody is ridiculous. Nuances matter. I get tired of how the media tries to lump entirely different cases together when they do not relate at all.

The fact that Harvey Strother had a prior mistress, and used the death of the prior mistress to cry uncontrollably in front of Ms. Melican to show how sensitive he was is further proof that Mr. Strother was the hunter, not the hunted. The judge messed up on this one and I hope Ms. Melican appeals and wins something.

Posted using ShareThis

Fear

Fear & Loathing In Uganda

Maybe we should send those 40,000 troups to Uganda instead Afghanistan. Nazi like Gay laws to be implemented, by whom, closet homosexual politicians who don't want their secret brood touched by non political gay types, perhaps?

Posted using ShareThis

The Latest Ridiculous Headline Spin from the Conservative Side, "White House boasts: We 'control' news media."

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Shared via AddThis

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

There is NO STORY here other than the disingenuousness of some conservative headlines. What is so laughably ironic about this World Net Daily news release is that it does EXACTLY what the youtube video itself says it tried to avoid during the 2008 campaign, News Groups creating their own headlines and excerpts from provided content.

"We control the media" is being taken out of context.

Controlling the message that the media receives is exactly what was being talked about in the youtube video.

WATCH the youtube video, don't just repeat the utterly nonsensical headline that is the latest conservative salvo against the Barack Obama administration.

Wouldn't you want your messages to not be filtered by sources, (such as World Net Daily) into a completely different meaning from what you intended? That is all the youtube video is talking about.

The reason I am so offended by this tactic is it means we can't trust the conservatives if they are this desperate to make a mountain out of a molehill. Additionally, it takes attention away from the REAL damage and control that the Barack Obama team actually did do in 2008.

If the conservatives want to investigate the fraudulent credit card donations that Barack Obama received in 2008, the fake vote stuffing that occurred in the 2008 democratic caucus contests that benefited Barack Obama and hurt Hillary Clinton, fine, go for it.

When conservatives make sensationalistic headlines where none exist, it just makes me wish we had a THIRD PARTY to choose from.

This Current TV video cartoon is for those of you that don't get Twitter or can't stand Twitter.

This Current TV video confirms what I

learned many many years ago. The most

successful videos have a great soundtrack,

an excellent sound mix, and sharp writing.

The Picture is the bonus. If you really want to have a laugh, imagine that all the background people are Obots.

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.

This is Just Wrong. It is so funny that it may not be funny at all, it's where the rubber meets the road.

Do you think this video is fall down funny, or actually kind of twisted and harmful? If the person who this happened to thought it was real when it was happening, and experiences a momentary rush of fear and adrenaline that is no different than if it really happened, is it really funny?

What if we discovered that adrenaline rushes caused by a perceived life or death moment actually shortened one's life? Would you still think this video was funny? Is it possible that somewhere in the future this "joke" could end up being the deciding factor in this couple's break up?

One of the joys of being a human, in my opinion, is having some place where you believe you are safe. If that safe place is violated in such a manner as this youtube video prank, might there be future psychological consequences to what was supposed to have been a funny prank? Nightmares, seeing things that aren't there?

Or..., do we take our safe places for granted and sometimes a wake up call (literally in this case) such as this youtube video reinvigorates our senses? Is it also possible that the victim of this joke will actually appreciate her safe places even more in the future because she got to feel the fear without it being real, even though for several moments she thought it was real?

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.

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.

Hillary Clinton is asked if she will run again for President, I'm kind of wishing it were Barack Obama being asked.

Another one of those questionable questions asked of Hillary Clinton, this time by CNN, that can only be answered one way.

"Will you run for president in 2012 or 2016"? Of course she won't run again, ever, she loves her current job. What else is she supposed to say?

The training Hillary Clinton is getting now would make her the ideal presidential candidate in the future.

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.

Sherrice Iverson was molested and murdered while David Cash stood guard outside of a Las Vegas Casino Restroom, Prosecutors refused to press charges.

In 1997, 7 year old Sherrice Iverson was molested and murdered in a vegas casino public restroom by Jeremy Strohmeyer while his friend David Cash witnessed part of the assault. I never forgot that story because it involved such a young girl in a Vegas Casino bathroom. and because the witness, David Cash, who knew what was happening and did nothing, was never charged with any kind of a crime.

The Sherrice Iverson murder is one of the most gut wrenching stories you may ever read about. Please take a moment and read this story of a murder that happened 12 years ago that let a possible accessory to a murder, walk away completely free.

I seem to recall Cash hung out at the doorway of the restroom as a lookout for part of the time, the wikipedia description seems to downplay that aspect of the case although they place David Cash actually in the next stall watching part of the rape and torture before he leaves to go grab a meal.

Why can't Mr. Cash have his day in court now? Why not let David Cash prove in a court of law that his actions did not contribute to the death of Sherrice Iverson? Why did the district attorney pre-decide that David Cash was not guilty?

If the internet had not been in its infancy back then, isn't it a no brainer public outrage would have made it harder to camouflage that Strohmeyer's friend, David Cash, was never charged with a crime? Wikipedia offers a description of what David Cash did and did not do.

Click here to review non crime scene photos that tell the story in pictures.

Click here to review the time line of the murder/rape.

What I found troubling about the prosecutors not even attempting to file charges is that the young girl, seeing a second male nearby do nothing while she was being beaten and raped, could quite possibly not have struggled as much knowing that even if she could get away, there was someone else right there to stop her.

We don't know if Strohmeyer could have said, "don't even try and get away, my friend is by the door making sure you don't escape". Just because there was "no good samaritan law" back then does not mean David Cash should not have stood trial.

How can a seven year old mentally process a situation in which she is being abused and sexually assaulted while a SECOND ADULT is acting as if it is no big deal?

The emotional paralysis of knowing that David Cash was nearby and doing nothing to help could have caused Sherrice Iverson to not even bother to scream or try as hard to escape because she knew there was a second adult there to stop her. I believe there are experts who could testify that by David Cash being there, doing nothing, actually weakened Sherrice Iverson's RESOLVE to try and get away.

After David Cash witnessed a portion of the assault on Sherrice Iverson by Jeremy Strohmeyer, he left to go grab a meal. The young girl could have thought David Cash was going to get help. Dave Cash then leaving could have tricked the young girl into thinking she didn't have to escape, just hold on long enough until David Cash returned with help.

Whether these scenarios are provable or not, they are POSSIBLE, and reason enough that David Cash should have had his day in a court of law and let a jury decide.

Since David Cash was never charged back then, could he still be charged now?

At the very least, how about honoring Sherrice Iverson's death by visiting a forum that was set up on her behalf that have received no responses or posts at the time I first posted this article.

For more info, here is one more article.   There is also a "Rip Off Report" about David Cash, which makes sense since he did rip off society by not standing trial.

In case you're wondering why I am bringing this story up now, 12 years later, I actually tried to find this story a couple of years ago but could not remember any of the people's names involved and was not able to find any details about the murder. I recall researching for at least an hour with no luck. For some reason, I found something right away this time.

Additional archival articles can be found here.

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.

Consumer Protection Financial Agency works perfectly fine in Canada, why not here?

Before Barney Frank turns the proposed Consumer Protection Financial Agency into "Barney's Rubble" by granting waivers to all the businesses that the agency is supposed to oversee, please read this article.

The article states that in Canada there was a flurry of protesting by businesses when a similar agency was proposed back in 2002, yet once the Canadian agency was passed, without "Barney's Rubble" added in, businesses to this day have been accepting of the agency.

Why should Canadian businesses complain anyways when their consumer protection financial agency provided a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL and did not necessarily cause Canadian businesses to go out of business, at least the ethical ones anyways.

You can call your congress via the internet, click on this sentence to learn how.

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.

Jessica Watson, youngest teen to ever attempt to circumnavigate the world on a boat, alone.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Original Image at Marinasguide.

Good Luck Jessica Watson. Jessica is attempting to become the youngest teen to circle the globe, alone, on a boat.

If David Letterman wanted to slightly atone for his various mean and degrading talk of young women that seems to permeate his stand up routines from time to time, he'd do a show from your boat, or at least do update feeds.

Jay Leno, are you paying attention?

My concern about Jessica is not her ability (although apparently she did bump into a huge craft while preparing for her journey), but is her boat the kind of boat one takes around the world? I have to assume yes as she has sponsorship and all kinds of navigation and nautical gear on the boat, but if anyone can fill in more details, I'd like to learn more.

(Edit update, you can follow Jessica's tour around the globe by looking to the right of this column and finding her blog, called "Youngest Round").

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.

The Great, Dr. Phil vs Jezebel debate over what is "Shameful" teen girl behavior. Who is right?

Why does shame exist? Is shame outdated?

Why does society place "shame" on people, especially if the behavior that is considered shameful is between consenting people of similar ages. Does shame exist to punish those who give in to all of their impulses and as a way to elevate those who don't give in to those same impulses?

Is text messaging and all the instant gratification wireless communicating creates manifesting a culture of "impulse madness", are people beginning to believe that acting on all of their impulses is a "right"?

Imagine being a teenage girl who is shunned by boys because she controls her impulses better than another girl who simply enjoys her impulses. If shame didn't exist, girls who adhered to a stronger form of impulse control would lose out to those willing to be "looser" with their impulses. What do I mean by "lose out". lol, I'm not sure.

Clearly an impulse controller would lose out of being on the receiving end of inmature brats with a limited attention span who only value people that just want to have fun. Is that a bad thing? Or, is it just part of growing up to be able to interact with people of a similar age no matter how stupid or pointless their behavior might be? Is being so in control of impulses that elders respect you but people your own age ignore you also a detriment?

Is it shameful to enjoy giving in to consensual impulses?

If someone is labeled a "whore" but they like being a whore and like what a whore does, are they really a whore? It would seem to me a whore is someone who does something for money that they don't like to do. Uh oh, that definition could apply to most of us who have taken jobs we did not believe in but did it because we would be paid and needed the money.

If a teenage girl is paid by a teenage boy to perform a sexual act on him, should she be shamed by others who found out about what she did? The website Jezebel says no, how dare anybody judge a teenage girl. On the other side, a Dr. Phil video clip featured in that same Jezebel article says its time to take back your child from bad behavior.

The old school method taught by many of our moms was that it is the girl that dictates a boys behavior. If a girl is stricter in controlling her own impulses, we boys will follow and be more respectful as well. In the old school way, formality ruled and being formal was supposed to create respect, if not from one's peers, than from the adults.

Jezebel is saying forget that, each sex should have its own standard that is not codependent upon the other side, or, the two sides should be judged equally when an allegedly shameful act occurs. Jezebel also appears to be asking why is it society's business to judge consensual acts anyways?

Why should a teenage girl be shamed by society for performing a sexual act on a teenage boy of a same age, for money, while the boy receives no label in return? Either both people get a label, or nobody gets a label is the message that jezebel is espousing. I suppose the question of legality is also an issue as well. But is that really the reason the act is considered shameful, because it is illegal?

If we really took a big step back, wouldn't the person who pays for sex be the one who should be more "ashamed" than the one who receives money? Yet somehow, in general, the performer is considered by society to be the one who should be shamed more, especially if they happen to be female.

Is it wrong to try and shame people of similar ages who engage in consensual acts? If shaming children is not an option, does that diminish the role of the parent to nothing more than a room and board provider if they can't use shame to guide their child's growth towards adulthood?

Or does successful parenting involve teaching children without shaming them? What if shame is proving to be the most successful method for teaching a particular child?

There are exceptions to the shame rule of course. If the recipient is famous enough, then they actually will be shamed more than the performer. But if the two people involved have a similar standing in life, it seems like the performer who is being paid is supposed to be shamed more than the recipient, especially if they are female.

Is the standard of shame changing as each new generation creates their own rules. Will the day will come when shame is no longer a tool used to mold or manipulate behavior? If the day comes when shaming is considered shameful, will be a good day, or a bad day?

If Barack Obama ends up being a really bad president, and all of the reasons PUMA gave for why Barack Obama would be a bad president prove to be true, should people who ridiculed PUMA feel ashamed?

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.

REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS FAVOR HALLIBURTON RAPISTS OVER THE VICTIM. FOR SHAME.

Thanks to ABC 20/20 for Broadcasting this story and several PUMA blogs for already writing about this on their blogs... Uppity Women, The Confluence, plus, Down with Tyranny.

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.

TheBurningPlatform.com - Economy equals BIGGEST SUCKER RALLY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

TheBurningPlatform.com - Economy equals BIGGEST SUCKER RALLY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION

------click on link above to see article------

(Edit update - There does appear to be an ironic ally alongside the bankers and foreign banks that is helping to prop up Wall Street, it's younger people that had and have a job, but did not own very much prior to the economic meltdown. They didn't lose much because they did not have much, their spending power is increasing as prices drop on certain items, they know not to trust the banks or credit cards, stocks prices look low enough, and apparently they are looking for stock market deals.

It will be easier to have a stock market rally if the Barack Obama administration continues to ignore the middle agers who lost half their wealth in favor of the younger core group that voted him into office and had much less to lose.)

I believe this is a suckers rally as well. Better to pay down your debts than hope for change from the stock market. Undeserving and unearned bankers bonuses can go a long way towards creating a fake reseeding of the stock market. Fake enough to lure you back in.

Those who put their money in first, second and third, the bankers, can simply use their bonuses to seed the market, then get out once you put your money in.

If Bankers don't get that charging 15-25 billion dollars A MONTH in interest rates on EXISTING consumer credit card debt is a charge the american consumer cannot afford to continue paying while also trying to reseed their own lives, then they are idiots and we should not follow where idiots tread.

I believe what is also happening is the government and the banks want us to invest in stocks that have no guarantee versus bank accounts that are supposed to be safer, and insured. I fear Barack Obama was spawned from the trenches of Wall Street, and they both tap dance the same tune, a tune that makes you feel good even as the titanic heads for more icebergs dead ahead.

Shared via AddThis

Chase Bank's Smugness lives on. Will comply with credit card reform bill as written, reserving the right to raise rates prior to 2010 enactment!

Even as Bank of America states they will not raise interest rates on their credit cards prior to the credit card reform bill taking full effect in early 2010.

Chase Bank smugly states they will comply to the letter of the credit card reform bill, meaning they will do as they please, when they please, before the credit card reform bill takes full effect.

In my opinion, Chase Bank is the number one arrogant bank on the planet, and Jamie Dimon of Chase Bank is Barack Obama's favorite wall street banker, should we be surprised?

Click on this sentence to read the Follow up article at The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank.

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.

Another Creepy, One Dollar a Share Deal proffered by the Barack Obama administration during the bailout talks.

I find the excerpt below creepy. Click here to see the entire article.

CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE IMAGE.

CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE IMAGE.

Lets not forget how Chase Bank was able to "buy" WAMU for what turned out to be a dollar or two a share even though WAMU had huge assets at the time. The shareholders at the time of the WAMU Chase merger lost all of their stock value when the merger happened.

The WAMU Chase merger had to do with the Bush administration. It's almost as if the Barack Obama administration wanted to have their own dollar a share company the way the Bush administration did. It's as if they were thinking, "If the Bush administration can orchestrate a huge take over of a company and destroy shareholder equity overnight, we can too"...

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.

Robert Reich is Wrong about Government OVERSPENDING, and once again comments are not enabled on his Blog.

It seems whenever Mr. Reich has to give a Pro Obama, pro government spending article, the comments section for his blog are turned off.

I am flummoxed at how EVERYBODY wants the consumer to be enslaved and indebted as they continue to try and predict when the economy will recover. Rather than mildly assisting consumers who want to pay down their credit card debt by waiving future interest rate charges on their existing credit card debt, Mr. Reich proposes that the goverment go farther and farther into debt providing "stimulus jobs".

I had no idea how insulated people in the media are when it comes to actually coming up with solutions to problems that were caused by uncontrolled profiteering by Wall Street. Wall Street and the Government would rather you default on your credit card debt than mildly assist you in paying it down by waiving additional credit card interest rate charges.

Every month, law abiding citizens, many who saw their net worth plunge by 50% over the past couple of years, are still required to pay ridiculously high interest rates on OLD CREDIT CARD DEBT to the tune of 15 to 25 BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST RATE CHARGES EACH AND EVERY MONTH.

When you compare that kind of money to the 2 BILLION DOLLAR cash for clunkers program, do you start to see how the economy could easily be stabilized in a very short amount of time if a mild assist were giving in the paying down of credit card debt?

The irony is that 15-25 billion dollars per month that is currently going to the banks in interest rate charges WILL STILL END UP WITH THE BANKS, the difference is it will FIRST go through the consumers hands, who in turn can use more of their own money to pay off their debts. As those consumers respend their "extra money" every month, other consumers will reap the benefit of money first spreading between consumers. The recipients of this money will ironically enough, send it off to the banks to pay down their own debts!

The dynamic act of allowing a consumers paycheck to first circulate among their peers BEFORE it goes to the banks is the best of all stimulus packages.

These are troubling times when simple solutions are avoided and complex, Rube goldberg plans are implemented instead.

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.

How Come the Confluence or CannonFire never mentions DailyPUMA and other PUMA blogs?

Why do the PUMA blogs that apparently have bigger followings like the confluence and cannonfire ignore some of the other PUMA blogs, never mention them, don't link to them? (although cannonfire does not consider themself a PUMA blog, they most definitely were upset with how Hillary Clinton was treated during the 2008 race).

Why is this a big deal? It's a big deal because to avoid, ignore or simply be unaware of salient topics because DailyPUMA or another PUMA blog may come up with the topic first, just defeats the real potential force of PUMA's.

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.

Just What does it take to be a PUMA?

As time goes on, the PUMA movement appears to be simultaneously expanding, and also dissipating.

DailyPUMA thinks it is important to review and remember what the original PUMA flash point was that caused many different but formerly democratic support groups to declare themselves PUMAs, albeit their own unique brand of PUMA.

In my opinion the flash points that created PUMA were generated by media bias against Hillary Clinton. The media, led by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and then in rapid succession, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, Move ON, Media Matters, CNN and most definitely a few others as well, began slamming Hillary Clinton with crazy accusations while simultaneously not vetting Barack Obama.

The media consortium mentioned above ALL began putting a decidedly pro Barack Obama slant on their news reporting, while also creating an anti Hillary Clinton slant as well. Money may have played a really big role in the media bias against Hillary Clinton as the Barack Obama campaign was able to dole out a lot of money to the media and the internet in the form of advertising revenue.

Unfortunately, a certain, significant percentage of Barack Obama's donations may have been illegally gathered. Besides Barack Obama's campaign spending gargantuan amounts of money all over the media and the internet, the ill gotten donations were also used to entice SEVERAL DOZEN high profile politicians and celebrities to strategically give their support to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama's numbers were sliding over the final 10 weeks of the democratic nomination contests.

PUMA's were outraged that democratic political higher ups and the media would choose to "pre-favor" one democratic candidate over another, especially when the newly "unfavored" candidate (Hillary Clinton) had waited for her chance and patiently absorbed a couple decades of political interactions in such an amazingly divergent set of surroundings.

Does anyone recall ever hearing the media reporting that celebrities and democratic icons wanted the american people to choose with their vote the next democratic nominee?

All I remember hearing and seeing from the media was the pomp and circumstance of the next celebrity or politician being trotted out in support of Barack Obama. Many of these endorsements were timed to give the media an excuse to IGNORE significant Hillary Clinton primary wins.

Being married to Bill Clinton and an active participant in his political career had made Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified to view how political processes worked on a state level, and then on a federal level as well. Then to round out her own qualifications, Hillary Clinton served in the senate as well.

What was most painful for myself to witness was Hillary Clinton actually winning more delegates than Barack Obama from all of the democratic primary contests, even when the the votes of Florida and Michigan were excluded.

Knowing that caucus contests use 88% less voters to determine each delegate, and that the caucus contests appear to be easier to both cheat AND also keep away certain demographics, is something I will not forgive the democratic party for, since it flies in direct opposition to the stated democratic tenet of "fair reflection".

So more than a year later, where does that leave all PUMAs? PUMA's now support so many diverse beliefs and causes that it would probably be difficult to get them to agree to any one thing in mass.

However, I believe that it is important for anyone who believes they are a PUMA to at least agree on a couple of key points, the biggest key point being that Hillary Clinton was both unfairly treated by the media and the democratic party in 2008, and that we should STRONGLY consider peace based retribution against those who really had no business trying to derail Hillary Clinton in 2008 but did so just so they could grab their moment of glory and possibly better position themselves for some kind of business or financial reward as well.

If you want to believe yourself to be a PUMA, then please, study the "unethical players of the 2008 democratic race", people like Michael Moore, Bill Richardson, Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore, John Edwards, George Soros, the list goes on and on, and DON'T SUPPORT THEM, ever.

If anyone on the list were to ever to publicly admit to putting financial gain or business opportunities as the reason they backstabbed Hillary Clinton, then they could be removed from the "don't support list".

It's really that simple.

Thanks to Common Ground for preserving the infamous HILLARY CLINTON BACKSTABBED THREAD.

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.

A REQUEST/DEMAND regarding NOT publicizing Michael Moore's Movie on your blog unless you also mention Moore's betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year.

(Edit update Oct. 6th, 2009). It dawned on me a few days ago that it is easier to just leave a comment in the comments section reminding us all of Michael Moore's "past". Daily PUMA is however beguiled that a couple allegedly pro Hillary blogs don't put a dailypuma link on their blogs yet do put links to blogs that have shown very tepid "support" for Hillary Clinton.

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

DailyPUMA is asking/requesting/demanding/notifying that any PUMA doing an article about Michael Moore's new movie that does not also devote some time in the same article to Michael Moore's betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, will have their blog removed from Daily PUMA for 60 days. And it will be up to you to ask to be re-added, and of course, you will be, as long as you ask after 60 days. (Edit note, change in plans, your blog will probably be moved to the far left column of DailyPUMA)

If you are a PUMA and jump on the Michael Moore bandwagon while pretending he was not one of the reasons Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination last year, you are an idiot. If you don't care that Michael Moore helped prevent Hillary Clinton from getting the democratic nomination in 2008, then you're not really a PUMA anyways.

If PUMA's don't mobilize now and boycott Michael Moore over his supremely idiotic reasons for not just staying on the sidelines last year, but his actually actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008, being a PUMA will simply have little meaning.

PUMA's won't have any real political influence if they don't exercise it when it needs to be exercised.

If PUMA's discuss Michael Moore's new movie without mentioning his betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, then PUMA's have become posers who cry victimhood about Hillary Clinton while doing nothing to stop the several idiots that stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Unacceptable.

Daily PUMA has already removed one blog, (Edit note, change in plans, blogs that clearly show they are PUMA-lite or less will probably just be moved to the left column) but I'm sure the blog owner does not care since they haven't had the courtesy to ever put up a Daily PUMA link anyways.

Just in case some of you are chuckling because Daily PUMA only gets a few hundred hits a day...The real reality is that Daily PUMA gives out 10 to 20 times more hits than it receives.

That means up to 4,000 hits a day get "shared" among DailyPUMA blogs because of DailyPUMA, perhaps that means 100,000 hits a month are being doled out by Daily PUMA to other PUMA blogs, one million hits a year that come FROM DailyPUMA to other PUMA blogs.

It would be nice to be listed on all the blogs DailyPUMA supports but that is up to the blog owners. Just beware that the few blogs that don't carry a DailyPUMA blog are helping to suffocate your own PUMA blog.

As the library of DailyPUMA articles grows, DailyPUMA receives a significant amount of non PUMA's to its sites every day. As a result, all of these first time readers get exposed to all the other PUMA blogs.

Let's not forget why PUMA's were founded. They were founded because of the blatant mistreatment Hillary Clinton received from the media and the many who had no business taking a position, and who may have taken a position against Hillary Clinton specifically to gain financially or politically from the ill gotten financial endless pit Barack Obama attached himself to.

Do the right thing, don't let Michael Moore get away unscathed.

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.

Will you Join DailyPUMA in Boycotting Michael Moore's new movie?

I'd like anyone who reads DailyPUMA and considers themselves to be a Hillary Clinton supporter to consider boycotting Michael Moore's new movie, which I won't even name.

Just as it was a "difficult" decision for Michael Moore, (who "loved" Hillary Clinton prior to stabbing her in the proverbial back) to denounce Hillary Clinton, it is also a tough decision for me to to boycott Moore's new movie.

In a future article, I WILL break down every one of Moore's reasons for "changing" from a pro Hillary Clinton stance to an anti Hillary Clinton stance in 2008, and then refute ALL of the points he used to come to his decision.

Please consider boycotting Mr. Moore's movie. If you can see it free, legally, by all means do so.

If you review and publicize Moore's new movie, you probably help him profit. If we can focus instead on how Michael Moore betrayed Hillary Clinton in 2008, and could possibly have been a tipping point at a crucial time in the 2008 democratic race, we can show that there are consequences to trying to swing a political race for what might have been ulterior motives, and most definitely was based on very flawed "logic".

If there were no ulterior motives, maybe, just maybe, Moore could have consulted with others who could have easily debunked EVERY ONE OF HIS REASONS for not only not supporting Hillary Clinton, but for actually being part of the reason Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination.

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.