You can't say Vagina on Broadcast Television, oh wait, yes you can, it's only in the Michigan Legislature that it's not allowed.

2 Broke Girls on CBS say Vagina, several times. Apparently Vagina can only be said on the steps of the Michigan legislature, but not inside.


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.

In Politics, Ageism is far far worse than Sexism when it comes to electing a Female President.

Hillary Clinton has many strong females who support her. Unfortunately, many strong females are focusing more on sexism and less on ageism, and I think that may prevent Hillary Clinton from winning in 2016.

While women can make a solid case for how sexism keeps them down, there are some men who have been financially and emotionally brutalized by society as well. The end result is the focus on sexism drives a wedge between the sexes, whereas ageism does not. There are many in society who are both a victim of sexism, AND ageism.


If you are a woman over the age of 49 who is fighting against sexism, don't forget about ageism. Younger females may view older females as competition, so once a women hits her forties and feels politically motivated, focusing on ageism more so than sexism may result in a larger political base from which to try and make change. 


Proof of how ageism may have stopped Hillary Clinton in 2008 more so than sexism may be found in how demographics are used in the television ratings process.

We all can probably agree that the media played the biggest role in who would be the 2008 democrat presidential nominee. But it should also be noted that whom television shows pander to, is dictated by the age of the viewers, aka the demographics.

Age Demographics have been redefined by the television ratings system to completely marginalize everybody over the age of 49! This form of mathematical ageism is wreaking havoc on the buying, viewing, and voting power of those over the age of 49. 


Here's how math and ageism have combined forces to debilitate the power of those over the age of 49. Presently, television demographics are clustered into two groups of 18 to 49, and 50 to end of life.


The average age of everybody between the age of 18 to 49 is around 31 years of age. The average age of everybody between the age of 50 to end of life is around 60 to 62 years of age, and there in lies the problem, two demographic groups ARE NOT ENOUGH to fairly evaluate the buying, viewing and voting power of so many different age groups.

The problem is by dividing all adults into only two groups, the 35 to 49 group has been conveniently stolen by the demographers and included with viewers who are a lot younger. Additionally, the 50 to 62 age group, another solid buying demographic, has also been diluted by putting them in with seniors who may be living off of social security and not much else.

There really should be four age range television ratings demographics, not two, 18 to 33, 34 to 49, 50 to 65, and 65 to end of life. The 34 to 49 age range and the 50 to 65 age range should be used by the networks to see if shows that trend either "too old" or "too young" have any chance at all of building an audience in the two middle age ranges of 34 to 49 and 50 to 65.

Click on image to Enlarge.

Instead, by making television ratings only a "two horse race", the 50 and older crowd have been greatly marginalized by the television networks, resulting in ageism. The graphic above is a perfect example of ageism. 

In 2012, Harry's Law was NBC's highest viewed show, yet it was canceled because the 18 to 49 viewers were deemed too low. In essence, too many OLDER PEOPLE watched Harry's law, and their "vote" was thrown out in favor of a MUCH SMALLER younger vote that other shows were receiving.  

Sound Familar? Even the names are similar, What happens to "Harry's Law" now could influence what happens to "Hillary Clinton's Political Fate" in 2016.

What if there were four age range demographics instead of two? 


In the case of Harry's Law, what if the 34 to 49 and the 50 to 65 age range were slowly trending upwards in the ratings? Suddenly, the argument could be made that Harry's Law was either solid or gaining in THREE  of the four demographic categories, not one!  

It was much much easier for NBC to marginalize the 6.48 million viewers over the age of 49 who watch Harry's Law by only having two rating categories instead of four. 


NBC chose to focus on the extra 400,000 viewers between the age of 18 and 49 who watch Third Rock than watch Harry's Law, even though Third Rock gets 4.4 million LESS VIEWERS over the age of 49 than Harry's Law does!


The argument could be made that Third Rock was already in syndication, and therefore it made sense to renew the show since it was already making money in syndication. However, Harry's Law should do well in syndication in a couple of years, assuming there are more than two season's worth of shows to syndicate.

How well the media treats Hillary Clinton in 2016 may hinge on whether or not television ratings go back to a four category demographic ratings system. 


The marginalization of those over 49 will have a devastating affect on how television show content continues to be aimed at the younger viewer, which in turn will pressure all of the talk shows and cable news shows to skew their content towards their younger audiences as well, and that will not be a good thing for Hillary Clinton's political future. Ageism hurt Hillary Clinton in 2008, it will probably be worse in 2016.


Ageism appears to be running rampant in the present two demographic group ratings system, and this should be changed back to a four demographic group ratings system as soon as possible. 

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.

Shocking allegation from DailyPUMA, did NBC cancel Harry's Law to avoid political commercials, which get the lowest commercial rate that the network has previously charged to their regular advertisers?

A friend who once owned a radio station told me that the one thing about political radio ads that he hated the most, he was required by law to charge them the lowest ad rate that he had charged for a regular commercial!


This is a big deal, lets say one month the radio station has several unfilled spots, so they want to give a super discount just to fill those spots. Apparently, that same rate must be given to political ads!

Assuming that television political ads are given the lowest placement costs the way that radio political ads are, (I apologize I don't know this for sure, that's what happens when you're an independent blogger) all one has to do is look at the Save Harry's Law Facebook page and see all the facebook ads on the right side of the column, they are all political ads! (at least they are for me, with facebook it's also dependent on who the viewer is).  

Is it possible that NBC realized that Harry's Law was going to get a TON of political ads between now and the 2012 election, and they did not want to be forced to sell their ads at the lowest cost?

If most of the people who visit the Save Harry's Law facebook page are seeing facebook political ads, then perhaps we can assume that someone at NBC with a bit too much power decided to cancel Harry's Law so that NBC would not be saddled with too many low cost political ads!

If this is allegation is even remotely true, heads should roll, fines should be levied, and frankly, whomever made such a cutthroat decision is a television executive terrorist who must be rooted out and removed.


There could be actual political motivations at play here. The case could be made that because Harry's Law is a show that democrats and independents might watch moreso than republicans (because of the defense attorney theme), that it would be a attractive show for republicans to run commercials to try and get democrats who are on the fence to vote republican this fall.


The ageism issue that is disenfranchising over 7.5 million aged fifty and over Harry's Law viewers because 1.5 million under aged fifty were not watching (it was 1.1 million) is appalling, and suspicious, and could very well be explained by NBC's desire to not allow Harry's law to be used for political ads.

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.

The Cancellation of Harry's Law, its Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign all over again.

Click here for most current DailyPUMA article.

Click here to go to the Save Harry's Law Facebook Page.

Did you know that NBC cancelled their highest rated show recently? Did you know that NBC cancelled their highest rated show, "Harry's Law", because too many people over the age of 49 were watching the show!  Look above and below, and get a little bit angry, no?

Click on image above to enlarge. 

NBC cancelled their most viewed show, Harry's Law, by valuing the 1/2 million less viewers from ages 19 to 49 watching Harry's Law MORESO than the extra 4.4 MILLION VIEWERS over the age of 49 that was watching Harry's Law. When compared to Third Rock and other renewed shows on the list, I guess it takes about eight viewers over the age of 49 to NOT equal one viewer under the age of 50, WOW!

This is really just additional proof that the media uses numbers and methods that marginalize people over the age of 49, be it politics, such as the 2008 democrat nomination process, or the programs they like to watch.

You might want to fight back, and sign the Save Harry's Law facebook page. Until there is actually a few million people over the age of 49 that are internet savvy and proactive, the economic and political discrimination they regularly face will probably continue.

In 2008, Florida and Michigan primaries (Hillary Clinton strongholds), were not counted because these two states had moved up their primary voting dates.

However, Illinois, which heavily backed Barack Obama, ALSO MOVED UP it's primary date from the end of March 2008 to the beginning of February 2008, yet Illinois's primary votes counted while Hillary Clinton's strongholds of Florida and Michigan did not count.

In 2008, Caucuses held in February very much favored the young because they were held at 7PM and went on for hours in dark and cold conditions. Keep in mind that in the cold, north central states, 7PM caucus starts that went on for hours were much easier for younger voters to attend, once again favoring the youth versus the more mature.

This age discrimination trend continues now with a show such as Harry's Law.  Basically, if you are over 49 years of age, your Harry's Law viewership counts for less than 1/8th the "vote" of a viewer that is 49 or younger. This is beyond insulting, it's infuriating. Please help Save Harry's Law Facebook get to 100,000 likes.

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.

Higher unemployment could be a good thing, if handled correctly.

Higher unemployment could be a good thing, if handled correctly.  

I wrote the above article for my Swarm the Banks Blog.

You are viewing Swarm The Banks. Please check out Parallel Foreclosure blog and UNfair Foreclosures blog as well.

The Churlish actions of some feminist bloggers.

It appears that some feminst blogs view males that post comments on their site in one of the two following manners.

If a male posts a comment about how women have been kept down by the media and Barack Obama's administration, the male is viewed as a condescending jerk trying to come to the aid of poor defenseless woman. This usually results in a feminist response of, "back off pal, we don't need your pity".

If males agree with the comments being made by feminists, that is viewed suspiciously as well, "um, we care what you think,why?"

If males remain silent about how the media and Barack Obama's administration orchestrated a disrespect of women that helped Obama win the presidency, then that's to be expected from typical male dunderheads that would rather choose whether to breathe or scratch every few seconds of their pointless lives than care about how Hillary Clinton was mistreated in 2008. 


So basically, no matter what a man does, feminists find the action or inaction cruel and typically evil.

Here's another example. How dare males not know that C.K. Louis is a female crucifying jerk! When asked for a link to some piece of video that verifies this point, none is offered, but the person making the request is viewed as a feminist agitator.


Apparently, not knowing that C.K. Louis is allegedly a feminist bashing male comic clearly proves just how daft men are who do not know a anti female male comic even after seeing some of that comic's work. (still waiting for a link that shows C.K. Louis as being anti female.)

This feminist perspective reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is assaulted because he won't wear the aids ribbon. "What, you won't wear the ribbon, how dare you not wear the ribbon"!  


It's that exact same tone, "What, you don't know that C.K. Louis is a female crucifying jerk, then you MUST be a female crucifying jerk if you don't know C.K. Louis is one! Asking for a link that shows an example leads to the classic elementary school remark, "If you don't know, then I'm not going to bother telling you". 

And don't ever bring up that it was the power women in 2008 who put Barack Obama over the top. "What, you just offended EVERY FEMINIST HERE with that comment, you stupid, purposely antagonist male".

The reality is Oprah Winfrey, Arianna Huffington, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile, and to a lesser extent Maria Shriver openly supporting Barack Obama well before he had been vetted. 

With two supposedly solid democrat candidates that most democrats liked in 2008 (Obama and Clinton), why were these well known woman so for Obama and so against Hillary Clinton before all the democrat primary votes had been counted?  


Answer, probably personal money and power gains shaped their decision. All of these women have benefited financially by backing Barack Obama rather than remaining neutral, although Oprah Winfrey did have an eventual viewer backlash.

But beyond that, (and I left this part out because I assumed that feminists were smart and got it without it being stated) the female support for Obama then allowed the men in media to gang up on Hillary Clinton, and the men did so in droves. 


If anything, the above scenario actual identifies the power of women in today's world for making a huge difference in the 2008 democrat nominee race.  Without the prominent female support of Barack Obama that was displayed so early on, the men would have had to tone down their caustic remarks immensely.


Instead, this position is labeled as "just a man trying to be a jerk" and blame women for the 2008 Hillary Clinton nomination derailment.  How dare a male mention that powerful women allowed the men to  to be so openly against Hillary Clinton in 2008.

For both men and women, it was hurtful in 2008 to see so many powerful women fall for Obama and publicly advocate his nomination over Hillary Clinton, who was clearly the superior candidate and full of crap.


Obama has now assisted in over a million homeowners unfairly losing their homes via parallel foreclosure and continues to crap on the Clinton legacy by doing nothing but raising national debt levels.

As for using the man hating card accusation, yes, some feminists will bring that card up, first, before the accused man can, as if that somehow deflects their own tenacious man hating tendencies. 

I saw a form of that scam played out in 2008 when Keith Olberman liked to repeat over and over some of Hillary Clinton's best lines about Barack Obama's ineptitude, hoping that if he said them enough times in a row with disgust on his face that it would would woo the masses for Barack Obama.

What is the conclusion? Feminists blogs will not trust most male commenters for having an opinion that is slightly different from their own, nor will they trust males who agree with them, and they will scorn males who don't get involved in the plight of women as well.

My question is, just what is left? 

What is left for a non sexist man to do, is to do what actual sexist men do, and that is to IGNORE THE angry feminists and their hostility, or fight back. Neither scenario is actually productive, and that is saddest of all.

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.

Column Header Title suggestions for DailyPUMA, please comment.

Please feel free to make suggestions in the comments section for column header titles.

Here are some possible column header titles DailyPUMA has come up with.  

• Hillary Clinton Supporters now supporting Sarah Palin, 
• Hillary Clinton Supporters now supporting Republican values, 
• Hillary Clinton Supporters now supporting Barack Obama,
• Hillary Clinton Supporters still supporting Hillary Clinton for President, THE SOONER THE BETTER.
• Bloggers who just can't stand Barack Obama for his shady, unreviewed past.
• Progressives who supported Hillary Clinton but now support a democrat agenda at all costs.
• NeoCons who supported Hillary Clinton but now support a republican agenda at all costs.
• one more new entry...Men hating feminists, who love Hillary Clinton. (you know who you are).

Daily PUMA may create two or three headers per column and periodically rotate them to the top of each column. 

If your blog fits any of the categories above, please leave a comment in the comments section, your RSS listing is free and is a courtesy to your readers who like having a centralized place where they can keep tabs on all of their favorite blogs in a very efficient manner.

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.

Changes coming to DailyPUMA.

I've decided to relabel the column headers and move blogs to the most applicable column header. 

DailyPUMA feels that many who were for Hillary Clinton in 2008 still like Hillary Clinton, but have moved on politically to far more progressive and far more conservative positions.  

The Wisconsin situation was a real eye opener for me.

I would like the column headers to reflect where Hillary Clinton supporters ended up. If you happen to see your blog in a new column and disagree with it's position, just email me and we can discuss it.

But I can tell you this, true PUMA blogs have all but disappeared, however, Hillary Clinton supporters have not.

If you want your blog added to Daily PUMA, please let me know as well.

I'll say this, Hillary Clinton is not a flag waving union suck up. Yes, she respects the purpose of unions, but she also knows that many state unions held their states hostage when "negotating" their pension deals, trading votes for pensions, with Gray Davis of California possibly being one of the biggest abdicators of all. 

Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton would have unflinchingly supported the pro union side in Wisconsin are delusional in my opinion. There would have been compromise.

I respect Hillary Clinton's experience and intelligence too much to think she backs progressive positions line by line.

We have a political sickness in this country in which the whack a noodle progressive democrats and whack a noodle neo con republicans are destroying the moderate liberal and liberal moderate majority, (the Hillary Clinton base), and it sickens me.

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.

Tell US drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to give their dad access to the only cancer treatment his doctors say could save his life.

Click here to go to Change dot org's Bristol Myer's petition.

I assume that experimental drug access cannot be given because there is a clinical trial going on and in that trial there is probably one group being given a placebo, and another group getting the experimental drug.

So, to let this person just cut in and get the drug may not be fair to those who are participating in the study and getting the placebo.

Life can sure suck at times, but I signed the petition anyways.

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.

Newsmax, aka NewsSMACK, has outdone itself with this blow by blow accounting of Oprah Winfrey vs Michelle Obama.

Click here for the most recent DailyPUMA article.

I think I'm going to re-read the quotes from both Oprah and Michelle a dozen times, they are that good. What I mean is, both Oprah and Michelle make great points as to why they can't work together.

I'm not a fan of Ed Klein, but if his quotes are accurate, they make for excellent reality TV without actually having to watch it on television.

Click here to read the ultra conservative NewsMax (aka NewsSMACK) Article. "Oprah Betrayed by Michelle Obama, Oprah viewed as threat to Michelle's Power", and their take on the Oprah vs Michelle fisticuffs.

I'm generally not a fan of NewsMax because of their generally demonic view of the Clintons, but this article is a must read.

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.

You may be supporting Obama's economic policies without even realizing it.

While I only endorse a Hillary Clinton presidency, immediately if not sooner, some of you who are unhappy with the fraud and deception that occurred in the 2008 democrat primary are blindly supporting Barack Obama without even realizing it.

Some of you with blogs, even some of you with blogs who get a lot more viewership than Daily PUMA does, are DEAD WRONG when it comes to policies regarding consumer debt.

Many people with consumer debt were not irresponsible acquiring that debt. Much of the consumer debt that people have now was based on 2006 home values. Debt accrual based on 2006 home values was tolerable back then when home equity values were anywhere from 40% to 75% higher than they are now. But based on diminished home values in 2012 of 40% to 75% of the value a homeowner had back in 2006, those same consumer debts are absolutely insufferable.

The crazy part is the neo con republicans say, "get a job", or, "get a second job" in regards to that pre-existing consumer debt that was based on debt when consumers had much more equity, while progressive democrats clamor for debt forgiveness. BOTH POSITIONS are stupid.

The ideal solution is what I call Debt Neutrality. No new interest rate charges, penalties or fees are charged on existing consumer debt and in exchange for that incentive the consumer agrees to either lower their overall consumer debt each and every month, or, if unemployed, the debtor agrees to pay down their debt whenever they have a certain amount of monthly income.

If you disagree with the concept of debt neutrality, then you are an Obamaist because all Obama wants to do is GIVE OUT LOANS and PUT MORE PEOPLE IN MORE DEBT!

Anytime Obama speaks about the economy, he talks about government loan programs, and that is it!  If wall street is not going to be properly punished for the HUGE home securitization fraud they committed that resulted in the loss of 7 to 10 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity value since 2006, and if all Obama can offer is more government loans, then the actual alternative that would work is incentivizing debt reduction so people can dig themselves out of their own financial hole.

But for consumers to dig themselves out of their own financial hole, they can't have bankers throwing more dirt on them in the form of additional interest rate charges, penalties and fees at the same time the consumer is shoveling in earnest to get out of the financial hole they already have.

If you do not come forward in support of debt neutrality, you are inadvertently supporting either Barack Obama's create more consumer and small business debt tactics, or Mitt Romney's cut social services far far back while increasing military spending routine.

Ask yourself this, what would Hillary Clinton do? 


Would Hillary Clinton really have offered debt forgiveness?  Really?????  I don't think Hillary Clinton believes in irresponsible entitlements, whereas Barack Obama relies on them to further his political career.


Would Hillary Clinton cut social programs and raise military expenditures? I don't think so either.

The conclusion I reach is Hillary Clinton would want to give americans the best chance possible to dig themselves out of their own financial hole without having fat cat bankers profiting each and every step of the way.

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.

Obama advocates for Gay Marriages just a day before two huge California fundraisers, how about a real discussion about gay marriage instead?

How the issue of gay marriages should be played out, but won't be because of the built in political divisiveness permeating american politics....

Step 1:  Gay Activists file a lawsuit claiming Gay marriage discrimination because some heterosexuals marriages are between heterosexuals who CANNOT conceive a child, and therefore that is no different than a gay couple that also cannot produce an offspring without additional assistance.

Step 2:  Court agrees that it is DISCRIMINATORY to allow heterosexuals who cannot conceive a child to have marriage benefits while denying gay couples who wish to wed those same marriage benefits.

Step 3: Republicans change the law so that ONLY heterosexual couples who can conceive can have marriage benefits.

Step 4:  Heterosexual couples who cannot conceive are so incensed they no longer are considered as married as heterosexual couples who can conceive they rip up their marriage certificates and form a coalition with gay couples and agree to have a "civil union" ceremony instead.

Step 5:  Liberal heterosexual couples who CAN conceive join the protest, rip up their marriage licenses, and agree to also have a "civil union" ceremony.

Step 6:  Traditional marriages drop to 50% of all marriages. The Civil  Union  Ceremony coalition comprises the other 50% and now DEMAND legislation that acknowledges their civil unions be treated like a marriage.

Step 7:  Republicans and Democrats now must bicker over issues such as entitlements and benefits "conventional" marriages presently receive versus what is acceptable for civil union ceremonies to  also receive.

The wildcard in all of this are heterosexual couples who cannot conceive receiving the exact same benefits that a gay couple would receive, and no more, I believe that is the best strategy for moving forward.

Instead of the above scenario then playing out to a spell binding finish, we get "yeah", gay marriages should be legal" from the progressives, and "ugh, gay marriage is an abomination" from the neo con republicans. 

Can we ELEVATE the gay marriage discussion por favor?

The real talking points are... 

A. Gay couples should receive the exact same marriage benefits as a heterosexual couple who cannot conceive a child, to argue against this point would mean one is an intolerant religious zealout, and that percentage of the population is probably no more than 25%.

B. Heterosexual couples who are married and can conceive really do have it the toughest among all potential pairings since their lives can change at any moment in time by pregnancy, whether they like or not, and this point should also not be forgotten.

C. Gay couples could stay the course and over time make civil unions more popular than conventional heterosexual marriages.

Barack Obama has simply played on the emotions of progressives and liberals by making this a democrats vs republicans issue. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, I think there would have been constructive dialogue based on some of the concepts outlined in this article.

And Hillary Clinton was labeled the divisive one in 2008, by whom, the dividers among us.

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.

Obama trots out the race card in his first official campaign speech of 2012, nobody from the media seems to notice.

Obama brought up the race card again on the first day of his official 2012 campaign speech held in Ohio, but nobody seemed to notice. 

Obama said something like..."show the world again how great america is the way you did four years ago."

That comment is undertow for..."show the world you are not racists by voting for an african american president again".  

There is NO OTHER INTERPRETATION for that phrase, I challenge anyone to come up with a different interpretation and put it in the comments section.

Luckily our "sage" media was all over the comment and made Obama explain it. (not).

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.

Rothman: Obama, not Hillary Clinton, was the right choice | Politicker NJ - Daily PUMA DISAGREES.

If Rothman quacks like a loser, and thinks like loser, and is delusional,  than he's a loser. Excellent call by Bill Clinton to kick this democrat loser to the curb and support his rival.

Rothman: Obama, not Hillary Clinton, was the right choice | Politicker NJ

If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...

info at alexlogic.com

You can also view more

commercial critiques

by Alessandro Machi at

Super Bowl Consulting

How come some of Obama's "advisors" are the biggest putz's on the Planet?

This is just outrageous, but typical for Obama.  Obama has a Jobs and Competitiveness advisor whose own company (TransUnion) sells credit info to companies who then use that info to fire people already hired because their debt to credit ratio is too high! 


Do you see the Obama pattern here?  Either you have money and donate to the pompous king leading us, or you walk on your knees to him and gratefully accept his handout.


Read below and gasp......

Fired for having student loans? Latoya Horton says she was fired from her job as an accountant, not because she did anything wrong, but because her employer checked her credit report and decided her debt-to-credit ratio was too high. Latoya was outraged: "How are you supposed to pay off your student loans if you can't get -- or keep -- a job because of your loans?"

It happens more than you think: Latoya found out that 60% of employers now check employees' credit reports. They often buy them from TransUnion, one of the largest credit reporting companies. TransUnion's chair, Penny Pritzker, even sits on President Obama's jobs panel. She's responsible for spurring job creation, but her company is profiting from a practice that makes it harder for people with debt to find work.

You can help: Latoya started a petition on Change.org demanding that TransUnion stop selling credit reports to employers immediately. If thousands of people sign Latoya's petition, it will shine a national spotlight on what Latoya thinks is an ethically dubious practice, and TransUnion's executives will be forced to respond.Click here to sign Latoya's petition.


Thanks,  - Tim

------

Here's a lot more information about Latoya's campaign in her own words:Years ago I went to college to study accounting, and like millions of other Americans I took out loans to pay for it. A few years later I got a temporary job in the accounting department at Bain & Co., and after 6 months of reliable work I was thrilled to be offered a full-time position.

However, just a few weeks after starting in my new position the company fired me because my debt-to-credit ratio was too high. I later learned that 60% of employers now check credit reports, which typically include student debts. 

How are you supposed to pay off your student debts if you can't get (or keep) a job BECAUSE of your debts? And what do my student debts have to do with my ability to do a job well anyway?

25 states have debated bills in the last year to restrict this practice, and in a number of these states one company has fought hardest against these efforts: credit reporting company TransUnion.

What's ironic is that Penny Pritzker, TransUnion's Chair and part owner, sits on President Obama's Jobs and Competitiveness Council, which advises the President on putting Americans back to work. How can someone advise on national job creation when her company sells products that may keep qualified people out of work?

Please join me and 25 national civil rights organizations in calling on TransUnion to stop its sale of credit reports to employers. As the only one of the “Big 3” credit reporting companies that's privately held, TransUnion has the ability to stop this practice overnight. 


It was recently announced that in the coming weeks TransUnion will be sold to two private equity companies, including Goldman Sachs. If Penny Pritzker is serious about job creation, she should do what she can to ensure that her company stops this abusive practice before the company is sold.

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.

How Barack Obama has violated the constitution in regards to Parallel Foreclosure and why he should be impeached and removed from office.

Parallel Foreclosure is a blog of mine. I looked up Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition by Bryan Garner, to see if Barack Obama was breaking constitutional law when it comes to allowing bankers to use parallel foreclosure to victimize millions of homeowners who were just trying to reduce their home mortgage payments via a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED MORTGAGE PROGRAMS.. 

The answer is, yes, Barack Obama is breaking constitutional law.

How Barack Obama has violated the constitution in regards to Parallel Foreclosure and why he should be impeached and removed from office.

You are viewing Parallel Foreclosure blog. Please check out UNfair Foreclosures blog and Swarm The Banks blog as well.

Outing Hilary Rosen, why do some Hillary Clinton traitors end up at the Huffington Post?

I outed Hilary Rosen four years ago on my Hillary-Wins blog for her Huffington Post faux article on why she still was supporting Hillary Clinton even though in her words Clinton no longer had a chance to win. 

Click here to see full Hilary Rosen 2008 "Concern Troll"  article.

Hill Buzz had come up with the phrase "concern troll" regarding Obama operatives that would pine for Hillary even though they knew it was impossible for her to win.

The Huffington post 2008 article written by Hilary Rosen was a classic "concern troll" literary fabrication. Rosen pined for something that she realized was no longer possible (even though her claim that Clinton's democratic nomination in 2008 a lost cause was actually untruthful) Concern Troll equals "I feel your pain, but now its time to come to reality".

Rosen's recent attack against Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney,
smells of the kind of attack that Hillary Clinton was subjected to early on in the 2008 democratic race by Soros, MSNBC and Huffington Post operatives.

Hillary Clinton was attacked during the 2008 democratic nomination race as having done NOTHING during her time in the white house but direct white house staff to serve crumpets and tea to her tea party guests in between her shredding whitewater documents with her fingernails. 

And once again, we can find the Huffington Post taking the worst shots, witness the Ari Emanuel hit piece on Hillary Clinton. The Emanuel article ridicules Hillary Clinton for claiming to play a role in inspiring Irish women to be catalysts in the Irish peace treaty.  

This was the typical Huffington Post bile that has been regularly heaped at female politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, or those connected to politicians such as Ann Romney, or ridiculing Irish Housewives for the insinuation that they had any influence in the Ireland peace treaty, women just don't matter unless Arianna Huffington decides they matter.

Dick Morris possibly had the most outrageous quote of all... 

...Clinton critics like Dick Morris, a onetime political adviser to President Bill Clinton, ridiculed her foreign agenda as little more than ceremonial fluff.

“During her international travels, there was no serious diplomacy, just a virtually endless round of meetings with women, visiting arts-and-crafts centers, watching native industries and photo opportunities for the local media,” Morris wrote recently.

Inspiring women across the world to become more involved in their own communities to saving lives by meeting with women who were in danger of becoming political shrapnel until Hillary Clinton gave them a public spotlight; are we supposed to believe Morris's patriarchally dim witted view that these highly regarded but under publicized politically active women in foreign countries that Hillary Clinton met with just did not matter?

The republicans accused Hillary Clinton of being "Billary", while the Soros/Huffington Post MSNBC led Obama supporters accused Hillary Clinton of being the equivalent of a "Whitehousewife", that is quite some range. 

Hillary "Snowball" Clinton had the neocon republicans and the progressive democrats questioning her time in the white house. The smart people, the moderate liberals, the PUMA's, knew better.

4 years later, and Hilary Rosen trumpets the SAME THEME of trivializing women when she speaks of Anne Romney, and of course, its from the Soros fortified cesspool known as the Huffington Post.

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.