Republican Politicians and Fox Television News bring out the Attack Bill Clinton playbook regarding Benghazi by obstructing progress now so they can blame the democrats now and later.

Political Cover-ups nowadays have a different meaning than in the days of watergate. Back during watergate, cover-ups were done to hide absolutely illegal behavior.  

Nowadays, coverups are done to cover up.... screw ups. The problem is Republican politicians would prefer to live in the past and associate cover ups with impeachment rammifications rather than the less noxious odor of democrats simply not giving the opposition an opportunity to create more political gridlock. Create more political gridlock, an oxymoron and then some, but it appears it's the only thing that Republican Politicians excel at.

So what was the potential alleged cover-up about Benghazi? 

This is strictly my opinion, I think the potential cover-up about Benghazi was caused because there were no true "red phone emergency" plans in place for our U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide in which the actual people in the embassy could initiate a call for immediate military assistance.

On the surface no true red phone emergency option sounds egregious. However, Military Intelligence protocol most likely dictates that those within the Military Intelligence circle initiate the use of force, offensive or defensive. 

Suddenly, a situation arises in which an emergency military "request" is made for additional security by non military intelligence personnel, and there in lies the conflict.

Imagine reporting a fire and the person on the other end needs to get verification that there is a fire before officially calling it a fire and sending out fire trucks. Kind of scary, no?  

But when one realizes the worldwide reach of the U.S. government includes 294 embassies and consulates the idea that any one embassy can initiate military response by simply making a phone call becomes implausible. And if I'm not mistaken, didn't the republicans reduce the budget that would have allowed for more proactive protection for these 294 worldwide locations?

In Los Angeles, police are having trouble with rogue cell phone emergency calls, called "swatting", in which anonymous people using anonymous pre-paid cell phones call in false home emergencies involving celebrities. Verification before the use of military force will always be a fulcrum issue, so lets treat it as the issue rather than only a subtext for attempting to bring impeachment proceedings against a standing president.

If Republican politicians truly cared about the U.S. more so than their own "me driven" selfish agenda, they would be demanding a review of the military response process for our embassies and consulates for the purposes of streamlining it and making it more pro active in the future.

Here is what I just can't comprehend, if it is generally agreed that orchestrating all of our interests all over the world without loss of life is the goal, then how are the republicans achieving this by demanding we all focus an immense amount of attention on this one incident? 

Are the republican politicians confident that as they distract and obstruct government resources towards endless hearings and accusations and media posturing against the president; they are not in any way weakening the United States towards preventing the next embassy or consulate tragedy?

If the republicans take back the white house in 2016, will they obstruct now during Obama's term, and then later blame the democrats that it was the policies in place now that caused tragedies to occur on their watch?

That is what the republican politicians did to Bill Clinton. They obstructed Bill Clinton in his foreign policy pursuits by accusing him of doing whatever possible to distract attention away from his consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky, then blamed Bill Clinton for 911 by saying he didn't do enough to get Osama Bin Laden when he was in office.

No matter how annoyed or angry I was over the 2008 democrat nomination process, I can't stand by and watch republicans play their same old stupid games, can you?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

The comedy behind the Conservative Outrage over Non Profit 501 (c) (3) status application delays.

Straight from the IRS codes...

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. 

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 18-mar-2013

• 
  

In other words, Non profit 501 (c)(3) status IS NOT to be used by a political group for a political agenda. Conservative groups are up in arms, many doing their impersonation of Jesus on the Cross over how they were denied or delayed non-profit status, when they were CLEARLY politically driven non-profits and not entitled to the non-profit status they were seeking.

One email list I am on attempted to explain how all they were doing was teaching women how to become political candidates. Um, those would be CONSERVATIVE political candidates.

However, the false meme's are doing their part, allowing conservatives the opportunity to orgy flog each other with tears and donations wrought from completely unearned empathy.

wow.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Debt Suspension Rights: My Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Los Angeles Public Comments Speech.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Debt Suspension Rights: My Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Los Angeles Public Comments Speech...: Credit Card Default Reparations for Consumers 2000 to 2013. The following is a Timeline of Events that stripped Americans of fair...

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously you can still tell everyone who are you, example..."I work for...." etc. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Few things are more important than Consumer Debt Suspension Rights.

Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.  Click here to review/sign the Debt Neutrality Petition.

If you have been caught up in the George Soros vs Koch Brother's led Progressive (aka, ultras) Liberals vs Neo Conservative (ultras as well) Republican debates, you are being duped.

If you think you are an outside the box thinker because you listen to Alex Jones, you are still being duped. No matter what the "ultra's" argue about, at the present time, there are no consumer "Debt Suspension Rights" in the United States.

What does it matter if a gun lover fights for his right to own and maintain guns if 10 of his neighbors are being unfairly foreclosed upon? What does it matter if the budget is padded for social intervention if you or a friend, or neighbor loses their home via some of the dishonest foreclosure methods regularly employed by our own government?

While you may stare at the ongoing same old talking points debate between ultra's from both sides of the political spectrum, you, the moderate, aren't being protected when it comes to property and debt rights.

There are Hurricane Sandy victims who were given 90 days to make 90 days worth of mortgage payments. That is the extent of Debt Suspension rights they have been given in this country. A hurricane destroys a couples workplace, their home is damaged well beyond the insurance coverage, and the best that family can get is 90 days to make a 90 day mortgage payment?  Really?

I suggest you all start using the phrase "Debt Suspension Rights" at least once a day, forever, or, until Debt Suspension Rights actually exist. Stop taking sides politically, both neocon and progressive ultra viewpoints are basically those of raving lunatics hell bent on preventing the other side from ruining the country. 

It is insane to staunchly support either side all of the time. Instead, protect yourself. If you find yourself in a place where you can ask why americans have NO Debt Suspension Rights, see how flummoxed the other entity is as they stumble for an answer.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Darryl Issa, the biggest ball of goof on the Republican side of politics.

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

What follows below is the transcript for the above video.

...these days Hillary Clinton is riding high. A new poll shows that 64% of americans view her favorably. Of course, this terrifies republicans so they've kept their favorite line of attack. benghazi. As secretary of state mrs. clinton testified about the attack on our consulate and an independent review board cleared her any personal fault. 

But the gop doesn't care. House republicans huddled behind closed doors and cooked up their own report that blames clinton personally for lower security at the benghazi consulate. and they've been going on fox news to promote it.

Secretary of state was just wrong. Three months before the attack she outright denied security in her signature in a cable april 2012, her signature in a cable. That's a powerful accusation. There's only one problem. It's not true. Democratic congressman elijah sent this letter. He points out that the cable Issa is talking about has a section with the secretary's name typed at the bottom of the page. 

Just as thousands of other cables, typed, text, no signature. Clinton never signed it. There's no indication she ever even saw it. The fact checkers at "the washington post" looked into this theory, too. They agree. Four pinnoek ohios for issa's signature argument. Anything to say about that Mr.Issa?

"Bless the democrats' hearts. They like their report but can't find a factual error to ours". 

Well, looks like we found one. A big one. Did congressman Issa think that we would sign off on his attempt to take down mrs. clinton? 

Nice try, but we got you.

-End of Transcript.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Is the Gun Debate really more important than establishing debt suspension for consumers affected by a circumstance beyond their control?

Please watch this CBS news item about a group of Hurricane Sandy homeowners. Consumers have got to start demanding Debt Suspension when a circumstance occurs beyond their control that adversely affects their ability to create income so they can pay all of their bills.

Instead, the masses get manipulated by Debt Forgiveness dingbats on the occupy side and get a second job on the conservative side. Neither position actually provides a reasonable solution when an emergency beyond a consumer's control, occurs. 

A moderate would conclude, just suspend debts until the natural disaster caused by Hurricane Sandy is reasonably resolved.

Yes, it really is that simple.

We now have a gun debate going on to distract us from a much bigger enemy, paper violence inflicted on main street by our banks and wall street.


Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Gay Marriage advocates like Rachel Maddow basically spit on heterosexual foreclosures for the past several years.

I can only take extremely small doses of Rachel Maddow (and never on MSNBC as they are still on my boycott list, along with the other cable news network shows found nearby) because she has perfected the art of coming off as a likeable, gosh gee whiz kind of intellectual fraud.

Rachel came on the David Letterman show earlier this morning, and may I add, right after Louis CK, who a few feminsts have put in their sites as being anti woman, a ridiculous claim. I just saw small portion of the middle of the Maddow interview and caught her gosh gee whiz act about gay marriage, and suddenly it dawned on me an additional reason about the gay marriage issue that is frustrating the heck out of me.

There have literally been millions of homeowners who have been unfairly foreclosed upon over the past several years and I think it is fair to surmise that MANY of them have been married, heterosexual couples.

Possibly those most severely victimized were those who had paid off their homes but were near retirement age or retired, and I think we can agree that at least 80% to 90% of those homeowners were either single, or heterosexual married couples.

For those who were already retired and simply wanted to slowly take out a modest amount of equity out of their home every month, many only had the option of a reverse mortgage. Reverse Mortgages require mortgage insurance which will basically take a THIRD of the total value of the home over the course of a 10 to 15 year draw on the equity, the interest rate charges on that reverse mortgage another third, and finally, only a third is left for the retirees!

That's it, approximately one third of the actual value of the home equity would go to the retirees were they simply wanting to take out a modest amount out of equity on a monthly basis from their home over a 10 to 15 year time period!

It's even worse if one was nearing retirement age but had lost their job prospects due to a combination of their skill set being obsoleted or just not fitting into a younger age demographic for certain types of work. Those over 50 and without a job who wanted to slowly pull out equity of their home would be forced to pretty much sell their home, even if they had already paid it off!

Did the gay movement move in and help these people, many just too old or beaten down by the system to really fight back, in their fight to save their homes? Please, show me the evidence, because I don't think it exists.

So what we have are what I despise most about progressive democrats, elitists who curry sympathy with the media by portraying others as being boarish, and Rachel Maddow is one of their leaders.

So tell me Rachel Maddow, is it really so weird that many heterosexuals who actually support gay marriage are ALSO PUT OFF by the insinuation that a gay marriage is identical to a heterosexual marriage (the fertility issue is a HUGE DIFFERENCE as it allows a gay marriage much more freedom sexually and when to choose to have kids), what did you do from your TV show pulpit over the past 6 years to help older homeowners keep their homes, most of whom were either heterosexual or single?

More likely, that time was spent by Maddow fighting for causes in which she could portray republican politicians as the oppressors, that's her shtick. 

Picture Maddow as the new kid on the block who sees a line of desperate people trying to make sense out of how all of their life long investments turned to mush, and then they can't even tap into their own homes, even if paid off. All Maddow does is walk on by diverting attention away from our older population that is suffering huge, unfair home equity losses and instead turns our attention to those wascally wepublicans who want to stop gay marriage and bust unions (got pension fraud?).

At least republicans are bold and obtuse with their sometimes outdated viewpoints, Maddow is simply cunning, yet both have lost the huge moderate base.

I hope Hillary Clinton can navigate around both extremist philosophies and tap into the huge moderate base that has been deprived from having their issues discussed by the fringy media.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

How to tell if you or a neighbor are a gun nut.

Not all gun owners and gun lovers are gun nuts, and not all gun nuts actually own guns. But lets clarify what a gun nut is so you can be extra careful when entering their gun space. 

A gun nut is someone who is so self absorbed in losing what they have to the government that all they care about is protecting their own property and to hell with their own neighbors and what they may be going through.

That's it, its really that simple. If you own guns, cradle them, lie in wait for the day when you can protect your family and your property, yet are completely oblivious and uncaring about what is happening to your neighbors, let alone offer help, then you are a gun nut.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Talking about guns obfuscates the millions of unfair foreclosures that have occurred over the past few years.

Millions of people and their families have been screwed over by unfair foreclosure tactics via constitution busting practices like Parallel Foreclosure. 

The inability to fight back against the same banks that get bailed out while consumers can't even get debt holidays when they suffer a personal tragedy have broken the spirit of millions of americans.

This spirit has been further damaged as unfairly foreclosed upon former homeowners watch their neighbors freak out more about guns than homeowners losing their homes illegally.

Naturally the media expects a few hundred people will snap and get a gun and do damage, and they are very eager to cover these inevitable tragedies.

Oh wait, it hasn't been a few hundred crazed gunman, its been way less than a few dozen. Nonetheless, lets keep talking about guns while the bankerbators keep jerking off main street and stealing their wealth.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Oscar Pistorius has managed to do the unthinkable, he's put physical abusers who don't use guns in a better light.

I didn't think it was possible for those who physically abuse others to be put in a better light, but Oscar Pistorius has apparently succeeded where no one has gone before.

The thing about physical abuse is that the perpetrator actually has to stand close enough to the victim, and actually work at it. What Pistorius did with a pistol (this is not in dispute) could turn out to be far far worse because he might actually get away with his version of events. 

Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp to death from a short distance and he alleges through a door, then concocted what appears to be a somewhat implausible scenario of events to the police.

However, its Pistorius's word against a victim who can no longer speak for herself, and, a victim who may have no signs of physical abuse, such as bruises or broken bones. Instead we have an allegedly "accidental" shooting victim, dead.  

All it will take is one fool juror (or is it more than one in South Africa?) having just enough doubt to let Mr. Pistorius be found innocent.

It's difficult for a physical abuser to say "it was an accident". Physical abuser's have to rely on something much more difficult to assess for their defense. Did they snap under pressure and just lose it, were they being verbally or physically abused first, and simply over reacted? Either way, if they beat someone, the proof is there (unless of course the person had someone else beat them to set up a person, a scenario shown from time to time in movies).

But Mr. Pistorius used a gun to kill someone, called it an "accident", and suddenly, he actually seems creepier than people that lose control and beat someone.

As for Mr. Pistorius's story, I don't think key points add up. For him to think his wife was in bed, there would have had to be blankets on the bed for her to be under. No blankets, than the presumably white mattress sheets would have easily shown whether someone was in bed or not.

If there were bed sheets on the bed, than why was the fan on? The fan is on to cool the room I presume, so why have blankets?  

Whether or not Mr. Pistorius had his prosthetics on, something else doesn't add up as well. If Mr. Pistorius did not have his prosthetics on, his eye line is much closer to that of the bed and that should have made it easier to see if there was a "bump" in the bed where his girlfriend would be as he passed to go to the bathroom.

If Mr. Pistorius did have his prosthetics on, then that means he took the time to do so, and the emergency in the bathroom was not as dire as he has portrayed it.

Plus, this means he was able to see well enough to grab both his pistol and legs in the pitch of dark, yet not see his girlfriend.

And finally, with gun in hand, and a potential invader in the bathroom, Mr. Pistorius now had the upper hand and could easily have kept an eye on the bathroom door while whispering to his girlfriend to call the police.

Is it possible that Mr. Pistorius had to crash through the bathroom door to dispose of any defensive tool Reeva Steenkamp may have had in her possession?  I hope they check the toilet and the outsides ground very carefully for any flushed or tossed defense weapon.

And finally, even if Mr. Pistorius was 100% telling the truth, I think he should still be found guilty of being an absolutely stupid human who was incapable of communicating with what should have mattered the most to him, Reeva Steenkamp, in what he thought was a life or death situation FOR BOTH OF THEM, not just him.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Judge lectures Penelope Soto. then reduces her sentence while never apologizing for baiting her with his "bye, bye" comment.

I actually agree with the judge's concern about Penelope Soto. It appeared she might have been high the first time she appeared in his court room and it did look like she needed a wake up call from somebody. But, the judge baited her with his "bye, bye" comment, a fact that NOBODY in the media noticed with the exception of Daily PUMA.

The latest encounter between the judge and Penelope Soto has the judge "legally" lecturing Ms. Soto with fatherly advice, and then reducing her sentence after she apologizes. 

However, the Judge's "bye, bye" comment in the original sentencing video did initiate and catalyze what then followed. The judge's unwillingness to acknowledge his own baiting "bye, bye" comment most likely caused Soto's response of "adios". The judge was wrong to place blame only at the feet of Soto and I believe somebody above the Judge's pay grade should review his demeanor. 

I find it sad how many other "reporting agencies" have simply parroted the headline about a girl flipping off a judge, when it was actually more truthful that the judge baited the girl first.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Culturally Insensitive Judge universally applauded for bullying 18 year old Penelope Soto.

(Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2013 update... Apparently the judge is hispanic, although he sounds Irish to me. I still think he baited her with his "bye, bye" comment, and the word "adios", is this really an insult all of the time when it is used by itself?  End of Feb. 6, 2013 update)

(Saturday, Feb. 9, 2013 update), Judge was only "funnin" about the 30 day sentence, called the girl back into chambers and freed her after she apologized, and he even said he did not want to be seen as a monster, or something to that affect, proving my point that he was being an asshole. What is amazing to me is how ALL of the news bureaus make no mention of the Judge's disrespectful "bye bye" that PRECIPITATED her "adios" comment. You see how the media just parrots each other?  

I really wish Penelope Soto would sue the judge, and the media for misrepresenting the story as well. The judge EGGED HER ON with his "bye bye" comment, and nobody will admit to that. How can we trust the media to get anything right if they can't even form their own unique opinion on a piece of video but instead just take one interpretation and repeat it over and over? And yes, this is a prime example of a patriarchal moment gone unpunished. End of Feb. 9, 2013 update)

It appears to me that Penelope Soto is either on something, or just plain giggly and goofy, or immature, or some combination of all of the above.

However, the judge seems to start the incident by disrespectfully saying "bye bye" as he waves her away with an arm motion like she's a piece of garbage. 

Ms. Soto responds by saying "adios". 

The judge, in a moment of what I believe is cultural insensitivity, assumes that her "adios" has a bad connotation and takes her "adios" as an insult and begins adding SIGNIFICANT penalties to her sentence.

The phrase "adios" means "I commend you to God". 

Even if Ms. Soto used the phrase in a disparaging way, the judge seeded that moment by first waving his hand and saying "bye, bye" like she was a worthless piece of trash, and that's not setting the proper example for her.

I think the judge should be sanctioned by his peers, suspended, and I hope some savvy lawyer sues the judge for harassment and culturally insensitivity against Ms. Soto.

And Ms. Soto, I hope you grow up, and fast. Ironically, the wrongness of the judge may actually help her grow up faster, but it sure looks like he may have overstepped his judicial boundary to do it. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Musical Political Dissent Causes Lupe Fiasco to be escorted off Stage at Barack Obama's 2013 inauguration concert.

Here is the link to the where I first found this story and below is the official statement from concert organizers and security regarding Lupe Fiasco's war protest song sung at Barack Obama's 2013 inauguration concert...

"Lupe Fiasco performed at this private event, and as you may have read, he left the stage earlier than we had planned. But Lupe Fiasco was not "kicked off stage" for an "anti-Obama rant." We are staunch supporters of free speech, and free political speech. This was not about his opinions. Instead, after a bizarrely repetitive, jarring performance that left the crowd vocally dissatisfied, organizers decided to move on to the next act."

I think that makes a lot of sense.  He said what he said, but then he didn't move on. 

In my opinion, you can't be for peace if you don't conserve energy, recycle, and just think about ways to leave a smaller footprint while still enjoying a full life.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Get Well, Hillary Clinton.

I now have a new year's resolution, Get Well Hillary Clinton.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Wow, a once in 26,000 year event just happens to fall on the Mayan end of the world day, amazing.

I find the following paragraph from an international business Times article most provocative...

"However, one curious event will happen on Dec. 21, (2012): The sun will align with the center of the Milky Way galaxy for the first time in nearly 26,000 years. However, scholars insist that not only is there no way the Mayans would have known that, but that this cosmic coincidence will have no negative effects on the earth.

So, how are you celebrating the last day before the sun aligns with the center of the Milky Way Galaxy for the first time in nearly 26,000 years, day?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

New poll suggests support for Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential bid

New poll suggests support for Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential bid

Don't be fooled, Hillary Clinton, unless there is an actual moderate democrat, moderate republican cable news channel in existence, you can be thrown to curb overnight.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Forum Post: Opposition to Glass Steagall in congress | OccupyWallSt.org

So Pelosi championed an apparent wall street congressional minion over Marci Kaptur for the Appropriations committee, business as usual for the rotting stinking head of the democrat party, you know, the party that is for the people.

Forum Post: Opposition to Glass Steagall in congress | OccupyWallSt.org

Huffington Pest at it already regarding a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2016.

You feminists who support Huffington Post, eat shit and live.  Huffington Post tries to thwart a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy in 2016.  Yes, the main article is from Salon Magazine, but it is obviously being heavily promoted on Huffington Pest.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

The Pro Zimmerman folks don't realize they are curtailing their own rights.

I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. What I have observed is that people who are polarized over this issue in either direction simply choose to focus on one particular moment rather than the entire incident.

One faction states... "Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled, of course he had the right to shoot Trayvon Martin".  

Martin supporters claim that Martin first became fearful because someone was chasing him, possibly Martin's adrenaline kicked in, and he reacted.

Both positions are plausible.

If you were walking down the street, and a complete stranger jogged at you diagonally from across the street, when are you within your rights to defend yourself or take defensive actions?

If Zimmerman wins and is found innocent, your right to react strongly as a stranger approaches you briskly may have been weakened.

If you have ever been robbed, or know someone who has, sometimes the robber casually jogs up to the target, a sort of friendly, non confrontational jog. The first words out of the robber's mouth may even be in a very even, calm tone, such as "I have a gun and I will use it if you don't give me your wallet" (or purse).

My question is, what do you care about more, your right to react to a stranger approaching you in an aggressive fashion before they reach you, or, your right to defend yourself after you have annoyed somebody into attacking you?

I'm more concerned about what my rights are to protect myself when first approached in an aggressive manner by a stranger (which is what it appears Zimmerman did BEFORE he was attacked), moreso than my right to shoot and kill someone that I first pissed off because of my own questionable behavior.

The pro Zimmerman crowd just does not seem to get that.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

The World of Hillary Clinton: Vote for Hillary Clinton to be Time's Person of the Year 2012

For the most current DailyPUMA article, click here.

The World of Hillary Clinton: Vote for Hillary Clinton to be Time's Person of the Year 2012

Black Friday, America's version of Running of the Bulls?

Click here to see the most current Daily PUMA article.

I had a feeling that if I googled "Running of the Bulls" Black Friday, something like the youtube video below would pop up.

Isn't it fascinating how opposite sides of the planets behave in an opposite way?  We love dogs and eat cattle, in India, dogs are eaten and cattle revered. 

In the U.S., we condemn the lack of separation of Church and State. In the middle eastern muslim countries, many think nothing of it when church and state merge together politically.

The U.S. generally condemns the running of the bulls, but we do it to ourselves now via Black Friday.  More fun links here, here and here.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Move On Dot Org Donald Trump Petition and my response to Move On Dot Org.

Click on Image to Enlarge.

For the record, I did not actually sign the petition, but below is what I wrote up above on the left (ha ha)...

Dear Mr. Trump, 

I am sorry that Move On Dot Org is so bat shit crazy. I think your 5 million dollar offer to Barack Obama in exchange for him offering truthful information about his college days was entirely appropriate.

We were all screwed when Move On dot org, an organization that exists because of how badly Bill Clinton was treated in the late 90's, went out of its way to sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential chances in 2008. Yet Move On dot org continues to claim that republicans hate women.

When it comes to the Clintons and you, Insanity rules the day at Move on Dot org. You hang in there, Mr. Trump.

However, I'm not happy about internet photos of your sons with their guns and their trophy animals. 

- Alessandro Machi

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

2012 Republicans need a dose of Seinfeld to go along with their contract with God.

Yes the last two republican conventions being shortened because of God Like bad weather conditions, and Hurricane Sandy just before the 2012 presidential elections, ARE A SIGN FROM GOD that republicans need to just slightly change how they think about things.

Otherwise, the classic religious story about the person stuck on a roof after a flood who three times says no when help comes because the person is waiting for a sign from God, only to hear God say, "I sent you help three times, what are you waiting for", has no meaning.

It's called separation of church and state, FOR A REASON. "The Bible says" should NOT be used as a primary reason to have a political conviction. Most of the ten commandments are backed up by law anyways, so there is no need to use the bible to combine church and state.

If we are to believe that a separation in the middle east between their religious beliefs and their own governments is warranted, then it's also warranted in the U.S.

Rather than relying on the bible, this means republicans have to come up with an intellectual reason as to why such politically charged issues such as Gay Marriage should not be legalized. If they can't find a non religious reason to be for or against something, they shouldn't take a position. 

But it also means that if republicans don't use the bible to dictate their political beliefs, they then can't come up with straw hat arguments simply to preserve what they think the bible says about Gay Marriage or some other controversial social issue.

That is the tricky part, to actually have a conviction without it being solely rooted in religion. 

I can find social references in the "Seinfeld" TV series that are absolutely every bit as valid as references to the bible when it comes to real life issues. "The top of the muffin" Seinfeld episode is the an absolutely perfect analogy of non renewable but easier to harvest Petroleum (the top of the muffin), versus renewable energy resources such as wind, solar and ocean tides being viewed as the bottom of the muffin (less tasty). The Seinfeld conclusion, you just can't minimize or pretend that the bottom of the muffin does not exist.

So going forward, if republicans can separate their personal religious views from their political agenda, they become a more reasonable alternative to the whack a noodle democrat progressives who are suffocating the much more reasonable moderate democrats.

I tried searching for the total precinct victories for each 2012 presidential candidate, but was unable to find it. I think republicans probably won more precincts than democrats did in the 2012 presidential race, so to imply the republicans lost by a huge amount would be a mistake.

There is some type of growing disconnect between more rural counties and those with more dense populations. Republicans must reconnect with the more population dense precincts, and do it without relying on the bible.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Media Misrepresenting Bill Clintons fiscal record, here is the correction.

While it may be true that Bill Clinton went more center because the republicans had a majority in Congress, it is also true that Bill Clinton LOWERED the annual budget deficit EACH AND EVERY YEAR HE WAS IN OFFICE and was the only president in the past 80 years to do so!

On 2012 election night announcers from various channels keep saying that Bill Clinton attacked the budget deficit during his second term. Nope, not true. Bill Clinton started attacking the budget deficit from his first budget and stayed the course for 8 straight years.

The best Barack Obama may be able to do in the next four years is to not keep running up the debt, but still leave office with a huge debt anyways. Obama did huge damage during the first four years trying to curry favors with those who supported him in 2008, and that move basically averted any chance Obama would have to put a dent in the budget deficit.

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

As the numbers keep coming in after Romney's concession speech, Ohio creeps closer and closer together,(I based this observation on a Fox news graphic that showed Obama and Romney almost tied, but that may have been an erroneous graph) and apparently Florida was slowly going to Obama, but may now be slightly swinging back in the other direction, so why was Romney forced to concede so soon?

If Barack Obama can be declared the "presumptive nominee" in 2008 (a made up phrase to justify Obama getting the nomination over Hillary Clinton when the race was still too close to call), why is Romney forced to give up when two huge states are still too close to call.

Instead of concession speeches, why not give a presumptive concession speech in which one agrees they have probably lost, but they still reserve the right to be eligible for the presidency based on all the votes being counted.

What concerns me is that once concession speeches are given, I wonder if the remaining uncounted votes are actually still accurately counted.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Main Street in Revolt

Main Street in Revolt by Salena Zito of Real Clear Politics discusses what could give Romney the victory this coming Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

If Obama wins, I will think it will be because Romney was much too piggish on his energy position, mentioning nuclear, shale, fracking, petroleum and coal in the final debate, and purposely leaving out solar and wind energy.

Romney's energy position is so dense that if Romney had been around when petroleum was first being introduced as a possible energy product, Romney would have dismissed it saying that mules, oxen and ponies were a far better value for the money, and that until petroleum could stand on its own two feet profitability wise, there would be no point in investing in petroleum.

This was a huge tactical mistake by Romney no doubt based on Obama's Solyndra 500 million dollar apparent boondoggle. How ironic it will be if Obama's Solyndragate caused Romney to so distance himself from renewable energy he gave Obama just enough of the independent vote to win.

Between Romney's invisible passion for renewable energy, and the apparent ample gathering of Republican military advisors from prior republican administrations, Romney appears to be another George Bush waiting to happen.

On the other hand, when one compares Romney to McCain, and Obama's penchant for running up the deficit while not actually giving many on main street any REAL solutions on their foreclosure and debt situations that was caused by wall street, it seems like a no brainer that Romney should improve dramatically on McCain's electoral college result in 2008, dramatically.

So what could still give the edge to Obama? Possibly that there are more younger voters than older voters, and every year older voters die off while more younger voters get the right to vote.

Everybody's talking at me, I can't hear a word their saying, 2012 presidential election version.

Click here for most recent DailyPUMA article.

(Edit Update, February 08, 2014) This is a political parody of the Glen Campbell song "Echoes of my mind" aka "Everybody's Talkin at Me." The parody below was motivated by the upcoming 2012 presidential election and the drama being posted online about who one should vote for.)

Everybody's twittering/posting/commenting at me.
I hear all the words they're saying,
along with the echoes of voting blind.
People sobbing and scaring,
Despair on their faces,
Pac shadows Fill in their disguise.

I'm going where global warming is The Shining, part II
Thru' the poor in pain,
Going where the talking suits won't reprise,
Backing off of the North East Hurricane Sandy,
Sailing on a global warming summer breeze
And skipping over the ocean like hard rock candies.

I'm where the sun never stops shining because of Global Warming,
Thru' the poor in pain,
Going where the empty suits don't know the way,
Backing off of the North East wind is impossible to do,
Sailing on a summer breeze of mountain dew,
And skipping over the ocean like I'm stoned. 



Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton want to save America, they should buy Current TV from Al Gore.

Current TV is for sale.

Current TV is a news channel create in part by Al Gore that is aimed at the next generation MTV crowd. Amazingly, Current TV only generated 19.7 million in ad sales in a full years time in 2011. By contrast, Current TV collects around 82 million dollars in revenue from cable companies that carry the channel.

If Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton want to save america, they could go a long way towards that goal by buying and converting Current TV to a MODERATE democrat and MODERATE Republican based news channel. PBS for the masses.

The second trick would be to leverage the price per household that Cable TV pays Current TV and move the channel number above 100 to the general vicinity of Fox, MSNBC, CNN and CNBC. Perhaps the purchasers of Current TV could offer a price freeze and even rebates based on total ad revenue for the next four years. In exchange for that perk the Cable TV and dish networks move Current TV into the 60's numbers where the other Cable News Network channels can be found. 

We are done with change in this country as long as the progressive led radicals on the left continue to duke it out with the neo conservatives on the right. It is actually the moderates from both parties who get things done. 

However the new George Soros / Arianna Huffington instituted formula is too scare the party moderates from each political party back towards the progressive and neo conservative flank within each party.

The result is political polarization. Those who called Hillary Clinton a polarizing figure in 2008 were the real polarizers. 

Current TV may prove to be the best chance our country has to systematically bring the moderates from both parties back into the leadership roles of the democrat and republican party.

If the Clintons are serious about undoing the damage from the years 2000 through 2016, they need to start NOW, and buy Current TV.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.