Barack Obama knowingly cut Mississippi River dredging budget in late 2010. Is Barack Obama's Munchausen's Disease by Proxy flaring up?

Click here to go to the most recent DailyPUMA article.

DREDGING TODAY, JAN, 27, 2011 ARTICLE ABOUT MISSISSIPPI RIVER FALLING BEHIND in DREDGING REPAIRS and HOW BARACK OBAMA was WARNED REPEATEDLY.

SAND and GAVEL, January 31, 2011, DISCUSSION of BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL STATE of THE UNION PROMISE to DOUBLE EXPORTS EVEN as OBAMA HAS CUT MISSISSIPPI RIVER DREDGING FUNDING, wow.

WALL STREET JOURNAL, FEBRUARY 12, 2011 REPORTED ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DREDGING ISSUE.

DREDGING TODAY, MARCH 25, 2011 ARTICLE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA BEING WARNED ABOUT MISSISSIPPI DREDGING SCHEDULE

Barack Obama has been repeatedly forewarned about the Mississippi flooding resulting from cutbacks in the Mississippi River Dredging budget as far back as January of this year and still refused to undo significant 2011 budget cuts to

the Mississippi River Dredging budget that were already in place.

According to Dredging Today...

Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La) and Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), along with more than three dozen other lawmakers, have written to President Obama urging that he weigh in on the dredging shortfall. Obama's proposed 2012 budget included an overall $57 million cut in Corps of Engineers funding.

"While River conditions have improved, the dredging policy put in place by the Army Corps of Engineers ... and ensuing draft restrictions have had a negative impact on commerce and remain a serious concern," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. -Dredging Today, March 25th, 2011

- end quote.

Later on in the article it mentions that there are only 4 dredgers available instead of the normal 7.

We have a president who is so in over his head that even after 3 DOZEN POLITICIANS WROTE TO HIM ABOUT THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DREDGING UNDERFUNDING, Barack Obama did nothing and now he's about to flood thousands of homeowners and business people out of their homes and businesses.

We have a president who knowingly cut 40 million dollars from the Mississippi River dredging budget and which will probably result in over A BILLION DOLLARS IN homeland damage and heartache for tens of thousands of americans, business people, farmers, retired people, people on fix incomes, many who soon will be homeless because of the Mississippi River flooding, flooding that is PREVENTABLE by dredging the bottom of the Mississippi River.

You can read all about it here.

Watch over the next week, as President Obama galavants up and down the Mississippi River, telling Mississippi River flooding victims, (a victimization caused by THE PRESIDENT'S oversight), that he will now help rescue them with low interest rate government loans.

Will anybody from the media dare to ask President Obama about "The Letter" from 36 politicians about the Mississippi River Dredging budget underfunding?

Our president has exhibited an equivalent incompetency towards homeowners in regards to HAMP, yet yesterday he got on television and BRAGGED ABOUT HAMP at a town hall meeting.

HAMP most likely violated the Federal Hobbs Act, the extortion clause, by taking property under the color of right. HAMP ACCELERATED the loss of a MILLION Americans' homes by luring them to a taxpayer funded HAMP program, causing A MILLION HOMEOWNERS to BOTH lose their homes and damage their credit rating in an accelerated manner!

If you are a homeowner, the present president continues to come up with ways to endanger your well being, and your home. Whether Barack Obama means to or not, does it really matter?

I also would not have much faith in the Republicans when it comes to HAMP.

Hillary Clinton was and probably still is the best option for this country. If only Barack Obama would accept that he is bought and paid for by too many people behind the scenes to be a good president at this time and step down and ask Hillary Clinton to run in 2012.

----------------------------------
(Article update, February 5, 2014).

For an article in opposition to Dredging Rivers in general, please click here.  However, I would like to add a response to that article below that was written in their comments section by vrager

30 January 2014 3:38pm

"I am amazed at the ignorance displayed by people who know nothing about water management. Put some Dutch people in charge and they would dredge the river and put the silt and mud on the banks as levees so that the capacity of the river is increased by deepening it and raising the height of the banks.

That’s why there are dykes on both sides of rivers in Holland and in the Fens. It the most simple physics: you expand the capacity of water outflow to the sea by raising banks and dredging bottoms.

It’s been pouring with rain in Holland and there isn’t any flooding, despite the land being below the river levels and the river levels are higher than usual.

The Environment Agency replaced the Drainage Boards which were established to keep the water off the land and to prevent flooding. The prime aim of some in the Environment Agency is to increase wildlife habitat by using the circular argument that wetlands attract waders and migrant ducks geese etc, and to protect them, the man made habitat created by neglecting flood defences needs to carry on being flooded. Where the cattle, sheep and crops are supposed to be is of no concern to them as their livelihoods are paid by taxpayers and they couldn’t give a hoot about farmers and landowners who over centuries have reclaimed this land from marshes and the sea."

(Edit update, May 14, 2011 4:15pm) FireDogLake has additional information about protecting oil interests above and beyond homeowners and farmers.

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.

Why does the U.S. Government allow the Mississippi River to flood dozens of cities on a regular basis? Why won't Barack Obama do something about it?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Barack Obama promised Change, and Change is what I want, darn it!

I wanted a supposedly intelligent president emboldened by his team of rivals to change how the U.S. problem solves recurring issues such as reducing and minimizing the affect of Mississippi River flooding.

I did a little research and the Army Corp of Engineers pre-ordains how deep the Mississippi River will be dredged based on how deep the biggest ships bottoms that traverse the Mississippi extend below the surface of the Mississippi River. The biggest ships may sit 40 feet deep so the Army Corp of Engineers adds seven feet for safety, for the boats!

Isn't that special.

Is it possible the Army Corp of Engineers actually is satisfied with dredging the Mississippi River to a depth that allows shipping lanes to flow freely, but won't go the extra five or ten feet that might prevent virtually all imminent Mississippi flooding that may cause over a billion dollars in damage?

Has a cost / risk dredging versus flooding benefit analysis been done?

If the Federal government spends 40 million to a hundred million dollars a year to dredge portions of the Mississippi river, what would the benefit be if that amount was increased an extra 50 million dollars?

If this year's flood produces a billion or two billion dollars in neighborhood flooding damage, wouldn't spending 50 million extra on the front end be a wise investment if it saves one to two billion dollars on the back end?

I read that the U.S. government actually CUT Mississippi River dredging funds IN HALF this year!

Is it possible that the dredged Mississippi River mud might have value as potting soil or for people's gardens? What about calling the dredged up mud Mississippi Mud and selling it across the country?

What if the extra 50 million dollars used to dredge the Mississippi was used to pay returning war veterans to actually assist in the dredging of the Mississippi River?

Yes, a jobs program that creates IMMEDIATE, TANGIBLE jobs and SAVES THE COUNTRY MONEY by REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE, while also creating a NEW PRODUCT that benefits americans all across the country!

Instead, Barack Obama, (just as George Bush before him), will photo op along the Mississippi River in the coming couple of weeks, grimacing, telling flood victims that the U.S. government is here to help them with low interest rate loans to help repair their flood damaged homes, flood damage that most likely could have been prevented in the first place.

wow.

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.

What Barack Obama said on Sixty Minutes about Bin Laden that was offensive to Daily PUMA.

Barack Obama's final comment to Steve Kroft of Sixty Minutes on May 08, 2011 about Bin Laden's death.

"As nervous as I was about, this whole process, the one thing I didn't lose sleep over, was, the possibility of taking Bin Laden out.

Justice was done.

Uh and, uh I think that uh ANYONE who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder, on american soil, uh, didn't deserve what he got, uh, needs to have their head examined." -Barack Obama

(Obama nods in agreement with himself). end quote.

I give Barack Obama credit for one thing, Barack Obama is adept at reframing the discussion to his position, even when his position leaves out so many important facets of the issue that are being discussed. Let's breakdown Barack Obama's final comment from his Sixty Minutes interview with Steve Kroft.

"As Nervous as I was about, this whole process, the one thing that I did not lose sleep over, was, the possibility of taking Bin Laden out".

Huh? "I did not lose sleep over the possibility of taking Bin Laden out"? Wasn't that what the MISSION WAS ABOUT!

What Barack Obama leaves out is the REAL core issue, the truthful, self damning realization by Barack Obama, something he would never admit to, would have been to admit to the following statement.

"As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing that I did not consider was the possibility of Bin Laden peacefully surrendering"

As I stated earlier, Barack Obama is adept at framing the question to his position, even when his position leaves out so many important facets of the issue being discussed.

Barack Obama then states,

"Justice was done."

Barack Obama has a history of using any legal technicalities he can extract from the mud to win his political races, the comment "Justice was done", in my opinion was an insult to the entire american judicial system.

There was "NO JUSTICE", there was revenge, there was avenging, there was NO PROOF that Bin Laden acted alone that would allow Barack Obama to flog the meaning of the word justice in the most brutal and anti american way imaginable.

Go watch Bonanza, dude. Even when known criminals were being accused of new crimes, there were the Cartwrights demanding the alleged person be given a trial.

Do not flout the word "justice" and mix it into your reasoning for justifying the invading and murdering of an unarmed man.

Uh and, uh I think that uh ANYONE who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder, on american soil, uh, didn't deserve what he got, uh, needs to have their head examined." -Barack Obama

(Obama nods in agreement with himself). end quote.

This sounds like delusional thinking to me, no trial, no proof presented, no chance to hear from the accused, summarily executed with no warning, and anyone who questions this mode of action should have their head examined!

"So how is that Change" working out for ya.

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.

Rashard Mendenhall said nothing controversial about Osama Bin Laden.

I thought what Rashard Mendenhall said regarding the Osama Bin Laden assassination was very eloquent, thought provoking, and spot on. In a prior Daily PUMA article, I too stated my concern over celebrating the killing of an unarmed man without any intent for a trial.

I first raised my concerns on Wall Street Change just after I saw the celebrating.

Mendenhall has lost one corporate sponsor, the corporate sponsor apparently does not agree with questioning the celebration of a pre-ordained human execution without a trial.

Amazing.

No matter what you believe about the WTC tragedy, there are suspicious circumstances to consider that could mean that Bin Laden did not act alone. Number one for me is that the buildings came down at 10:00 and 10:30. That's the kind of thing someone who would be detonating a bomb would do.

The mathematical odds that both buildings would come down on the hour or half an hour (lets say 9:59, 10:00, 10:01, and 10:29, 10:30, 10:31) would be 1 out of 20 x 1 out of 20, also known as 1 out of 400 that both buildings would actually fall on the hour or half hour.

It has been reported that a week or two before the WTC tragedy that the WTC went dark for a full day, and the building was closed for "repairs". Putting a transponder in the buildings would have made it much easier to autopilot a plane crash into each building.

But who could authorize the closing of particular floors for the planting of either a transponder or implosion bombs? How about Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother, who was a higher up for the company that did "security" for the WTC at the time the planes crashed into the WTC.

Building seven was "put down" on orders, (meaning detonation) and this admission was made on the Larry King show a year later. Unlike the WTC, personnel from buildings 6 and 7 were immediately evacuated after the planes hit the towers. This is kind of a big deal since it was building 7 that was "downed" later in the day. Was building 7 downed so that ongoing investigations would have to start over because of lost evidence?

Why were portions of the WTC "powered down" just weeks and days before 911? This would mean that security cameras were not in operation. There are reports that bomb sniffing dogs were also removed from the premises as well.

A huge array of one of a kind documents were lost in the downing of the buildings, particularly building seven, which included ongoing investigations related to Wall Street fraud.

The WTC used a huge amount of energy to keep it heated in the winter, and cooled in the summer, and apparently the heating and cooling costs made a huge dent in the overall real estate value of the building.

Clearly the crashing of the planes into the WTC was an ACT OF WAR, ACT'S OF WAR are NOT covered by insurance, yet the owner of the WTC was cut a check for several billion dollars for his loss even as the first responders who have suffered ongoing health problems from being at ground zero have not been helped.

In the book "Pigs at Trough", by Arianna Huffington, there is mention of a secret August 2001 meeting at the Bush ranch during one of George Bush's extended vacations, and there were rumblings at that meeting of trying to do something big to stop the precipitous fall in Mr. Bushes popularity ratings, which had fallen faster at the beginning of a term for any president in history.

Who made money from the WTC Tragedy? It seems like the rich got richer, and those with military connections and investments got the richest of all. Now one person who might have shed light on anything not heard of, is assassinated without a trial.

My point is, this is NOT an open and shut case of one person masterminding what happened on WTC, and to punish people for bringing up THIS VIEWPOINT is not something that should be done in a nation that claims to be for freedom.

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.

So the Mission was to "Kill Bin Laden", not "Capture Bin Laden".

Did we cross a line by not capturing an unarmed suspect, but instead, summarily shooting him in the head?

Maybe this was a big favor to the world. If Bin Laden had been taken alive, the amount of media time spent on every little detail about Bin Laden would have dominated the news for far too long. It is possible that hostages could have been taken in exchange for the release of Bin Laden. And, at every step of trial process, threats would probably have been made.

And yet, there's something about shooting an unarmed man without a trial, that just seems wrong.

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.

George Soros says the right thing about todays political landscape after having done the wrong thing in the past.

Please click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

I have been stating over and over and over that Fox cable news and MSNBC cable news have polarized the political landscape in this country by reporting stories from a steadfast right, or unflinching left perspective.

I have also stated over and over again that until a third cable news channel starts reporting news from the moderate liberal position, (aka centrist), which perhaps as many as 50% of the population supports as being the closest to their own political beliefs, the U.S. will simply suffocate themselves in a polarizing us versus them war of words.

Along comes George Soros in a News Max article, who basically says the same thing as I have been saying. Here is a quote from George Soros in the News Max article link above that I find just amazing.

Political extremism is “endangering our open society,” he said. “As I see it, the two sides in the current disputes have each got hold of one half of the truth which they proclaim to be the whole truth.” -George Soros

George Soros funded liberal democrat groups that attacked Hillary Clinton while supporting Barack Obama in 2008. George Soros got the guy he wanted in office, yet now he opines that the whores on the left and the whores on the right have all the power and the result is half truths at every step.

Isn't Barack Obama the king of the half truths? Barack Obama has support among Wall Street, yet he also has community based activism support as well, perhaps only a half-truther could accomplish this feat.

So Mr. Soros, put your money where your mouth is and fund a THIRD CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, one that is that neither left, nor right, but one that actually investigates the issues and points out the pro's and cons and perhaps even offers real solutions. And while you're at it, maybe you could apologize to Hillary Clinton for having your minions gang up on her in 2008 and label her polarizing.

Just who is polarizing now, Mr. Soros?

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.

Has MTV or VH1 EVER broken into their daily scheduled programming to bring storm destruction reports from devastated U.S. cities?

Does MTV and VH1 have the right to lecture the general populace about civil rights, "doing the right thing", supporting change, global warming, green energy, and so on, when they don't have the decency to cut into daily programming shows like Audrina, Mob Wives, and "Made", and bring to their audiences the devastation that many many states have encountered in just the last week!

Who the heck is running MTV and VH1 that they could be so greedy and so self-absorbed that they actually COMPETE with getting the word out about the devastation that has hit so many of our states and small cities in just the past week?

And nice job Barack Obama, bringing up the birth certificate issue NOW, right in the middle of possibly the most deadly and severe cluster of storms in the past 100 years that have hit many, many states in just the past 7 to 10 days.

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.

Breaking News, Barack Obama admits he is not a Natural Born Citizen, hopes media created confusion about being born in Hawaii will conceal real issue.

There is a reason why foreign males who don't move to the United States and then become citizens of the United States, are not supposed to father future presidents of the United States, it's called conflict of interest. It's why political officials of all other countries cannot impregnate a U.S. citizen and then years later have that offspring be eligible to become president or vice president of the United States, unless that political official from another country moves to the United States and then at some point becomes a U.S. Citizen.

Almost 250 years ago the motivation for the Natural Born Citizen rule was most likely to prevent British Army officials from impregnating a female U.S. citizen and then having that child growing up eligible to run for president or vice president of the United States. Our founding fathers feared that the father from a foreign country could hold sway over his offspring and thereby compromise the running of the United States.

Last I remember, almost 250 years ago, MOST, if not all, English Army Officials were caucasian, so it's not racist to apply this same standard to ANY FATHER from ANY OTHER COUNTRY of the world as well.

If however, 250 years ago a British Army official fathered a child with a U.S. citizen, and then that British Army Official moved to the United States and became a United States citizen, this could be considered the after the fact way for a male from another country to father a child with a female U.S. Citizen, and then convert that childs designation from U.S. Citizen to Natural Born citizen.

As far as I know, Natural Born Citizenship guidelines have never been authenticated. In regards to an after the fact Natural Born Citizenship, the question becomes, at what age would a male from another country who had already fathered a child with a U.S. citizen have to A, move to the United States, and B, become a citizen of the United States, to ensure that their offspring could be designated as an after the fact Natural Born citizen?

Most people who discuss natural born citizenship rules believe that the time of birth determines if a newborn is a natural born citizen or not. I disagree, and have coined my own phrase, an after the fact natural born citizen. An after the fact natural born citizen designation REMOVES ALL HINTS OF RACISM since ANY MALE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET could theoretically move to the United States and become a U.S. citizen, even after the birth of their american child, and thereby allow that child to become a Natural Born Citizen.

I think a foreigner does not have to become a U.S. citizen before, during or immediately after a pregnancy if the mother is a U.S. citizen. However, it would be reasonable to assume that at some point before a child reaches their teens, that dad had moved to the United States, and then sometime thereafter, (preferably before their child became an actual adult), would then become a U.S. Citizen. This is what is so frustrating about Barack Obama's situation regarding his own natural born citizenship problem, as time went on Barack Obama's father was distancing himself from the United States, not embracing it.

So even if the natural born citizen rules were even more lax, like, the father would need to become a United States citizen before his son or daughter could run for president, it would not have mattered in the case of Barack Obama's father because he distanced himself from the U.S. and his son, and then passed away.

If Barack Obama's father had at some point moved to the United States, and then at some point there after become a U.S. citizen, I would consider Barack Obama's father to have been a U.S. citizen, and therefore, Barack Obama would have become an after the fact natural born citizen. But that never happened. If Barack Obama's father had at least moved to the United States, that too could be used as an argument for natural born citizen status for Barack Obama.

The actions of Barack Obama's father are basically in complete opposition to what a foreign born father would need to do to ensure that their own offspring would one day be considered an "after the fact" natural born citizen.

Barack Obama's father not only left the United States, but he became a KENYAN POLITICIAN, the absolutely WORST case scenario, even for an after the fact natural born citizenship. Being a politician from ANY COUNTRY who fathers a child with a U.S. citizen would be the one universal rule for a child being a U.S. citizen, but not a Natural Born citizen. Yet in theory, that would not be a deal breaker as long as the child's father eventually came to the United States, and hopefully at some point became a U.S. Citizen.

Barack Obama's contention that simply because his mother was a U.S. Citizen, even a Natural Born U.S. citizen, automatically grants him Natural Born Citizen status in my opinion is in error. Mom's citizenship bought him time, 18 years worth of time??? Even if the timeline to when Dad would need to move to the United States and become a U.S. citizen so that Barack Obama could become an after the fact natural born citizen, SOME timeline should exist.

Barack Obama's inability to connect with main street, referring to many main streeters as gun loving, bitter people, is most likely directly related to not having a father who LIVED in the United States, nor a father who also showed his love for THIS COUNTRY by becoming a U.S. Citizen.

Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen, but I do not believe he is a natural born citizen. However, the good news is, his daughters are natural born citizens!

In case you are wondering why Barack Obama threw in everything but the kitchen sink today when he made his announcement about his own birth certificate, I believe it was Barack Obama flinching because he knows he does not meet the real criteria for being either a natural born citizen or an after the fact natural born citizen.

One argument that could be made against a foreign father becoming a U.S. citizen before their offspring can be declared natural born is, what difference does it make to the child if their dad was a U.S. citizen but also a deadbeat dad who was never in the child's life?

This is an excellent question. The answer is, mom and dad have at the very least a physical connection, and possibly an emotional one as well. I'd rather dad at the very least live in the United States and be amenable to becoming a U.S. Citizen if for no other reason than to reduce the possibility of trying to influence the son's political philosophy via the mother. However, a father who lives in the United States would be free to discuss one U.S. political philosophy versus another one.

One could then argue, Even if everything you have written is completely valid, the entire issue of natural born citizenship is an arcane idea that is no longer needed". Maybe yes, maybe no. As I cited above, I think Barack Obama does not connect with main street. Barack Obama appears to have more of an allegiance with a foreign father whom he barely knew, and who was a foreigner, than his own mother.

Just as Barack Obama finished writing his first book in late 1994, his mother was diagnosed with cancer. After visiting Indonesia and possibly Bali to finish writing his first book, and then soon after finding out that his mother had just been diagnosed with cancer, did Barack Obama visit his mother in Hawaii and then stay with her during her final year on this planet as she battled her cancer?

It appears that Barack Obama chose the memory of his foreign father over the real life struggle of her own mother. Maybe things would have gone differently and Mr. Obama would have been there for his mom in her final year on the planet had dad had been living in america, even if he wasn't in Barack's or his mother's life.

Barack Obama's own agenda in the early to mid 90's seems to show what can happen when dad doesn't live in the United States, a unknown dads foreign life is prioritized by Barack Obama over the mother who raised him and now needed him as she battled her cancer.

What about Barack Obama being raised by his grandfather, who was as american as they come? Once again, this just proves that Barack Obama is aware he is not a natural born citizen because he has attempted in the past to say his grandfather was his true father who raised him.

But Barack Obama's actions speak louder than his words. Did Barack Obama write a book about his grandfather slash father or his own mother? No, Barack Obama wrote a book about his foreign FATHER.

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.

If anyone has been personally affected by the horrible storms in North Carolina, Kentucky, and surrounding states, Daily PUMA can share your story.

Having lived both in the Mid West and the West Coast, I've had a chance to compare some of the different types of dangerous weather and environmental tragedies that hit different regions of the country.

Ok, they're all bad, and they're all different. I guess the ones that strike me as the most terrifying are the kind of storms that just recently happened in North Carolina, and then again in Kentucky. Even though earthquakes can potentially be the most dangerous of all, (although floods are no picnics either) there's something about watching something approach your home that is bigger and stronger (such as a hurricane, storm or Tornado) than anything Hollywood has ever concocted that will be on top of you and your home, no ifs and or buts, and then will just move on down the road as if it wasn't personal, that I find possibly the most frightening.

If you want to tell DailyPUMA your story of what you, a relative, or friend of the family went through, please email me at the email address listed at the top of this page and I'll post your story. If you know a blogger who is posting stories and updates, Daily PUMA can create a special section for those blogs as well.

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.

Should PUMA's back any presidential political candidate in 2012?

In a previous article a few months ago I gave my explanation of where PUMA's have gone after the rigged 2008 democratic nomination contest. In this article, I have to ask the question, why are we supporting any presidential political candidate in 2012?

I just don't think it is wise to back any presidential candidate in 2012 because we are presently being polarized to death by the far right and far left cable news channels known as Fox and MSNBC. I have not watched either Fox or MSNBC for more than a total of an hour or two in the past two years.

While I tend to think that Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC, neither Fox nor MSNBC cover important issues from a centrist viewpoint. Fox analyzes MSNBC's position, and distances themselves from it, and MSNBC does the same towards Fox.

The result is what I call news regression, news entrenchment, news polarization. No matter who you may like in 2012, be it Palin, Trump, Romney or Obama, the fact remains that the news outlets that report the news will continue to ignore centrist america, what I call the moderate liberal.

A moderate liberal is a liberal that actually cares about the budget and does not want a handout in exchange for their vote. Moderate Liberals tend to be middle aged and older and are family oriented. if you are one of the 70 million americans taking care of an elderly family member, or one of 15 million americans taking care of a parent with alzheimers, you are probably a moderate liberal.

liberalism in moderation.

Yet liberalism in moderation is NOT what either Fox or MSNBC are about. The result is a massive under representation of what moderate liberal americans want, or are interested in, by both Fox and MSNBC.

If you choose to support any mainstream presidential candidate in 2012, you give your blessing to what happened in 2008 as being "one of those things", and now its time to "move on". I would suggest before you give into the temptation of moving on and supporting a presidential candidate in 2012, you fight for a third cable news channel that places itself exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC, and you say it whenever the issue of politics comes up.

"I'm not supporting any presidential candidate in 2012 until there is a third cable news option that is exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC".

If you don't agree, then you may be validating the 2008 democratic presidential race without any chance for "change" going forward in 2012.

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.

My Favorite Headline describing the state of politics in the United States in 2011 courtesy of John W. Smart's Blog.

My favorite headline describing the state of politics in the United States comes courtesy of John W. Smart and goes like this... Corporate America versus the Waterboy for Corporate America.

Click the title above to view the article. John W. Smart also has a two part series on Brian Cowell directed towards Hillary Clinton supporters. Part two can be found by clicking here.

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.