Hillary Clinton supports Saudi women defying driving ban | Business Standard

Hillary Clinton supports Saudi women defying driving ban | Business Standard

Next thing you know, Saudi women will expect the right to board airplanes as passengers. What is the world coming to. (that was sarcasm).

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

Suspending the Debt: A License for More Wasteful Spending - Lies the Heritage Foundation told.

Suspending the Debt: A License for More Wasteful Spending

Welcome to the world of conservative misrepresentation about the U.S. Debt.  What is so outrageous about the Heritage Foundation's claim is they use a visual misrepresentation to make their case.

This image that the Heritage Foundation 
supplies with their press release 

(fact sheet #128) is a misrepresentation 
of the chart data used..

The first thing one should note about the Heritage Foundation's fraudulent graphic up above is the use of equivalent spacing for unequal passages of time. 

The gap between the first two dates are 3.5 months apart, yet the gap between the second and third date is 19.3 MONTHS apart. 

However, the graph/graphic is made to look like both equivalent gaps involve the same amount of time!  This breaks the FIRST RULE of Graph data, the time span between equivalent distance sections of a graph MUST BE THE SAME, otherwise any visual comparisons are basically worthless, or worse.

But there is additional Heritage Foundation "fact sheet 128" misrepresentations. The Heritage Foundation Graph shows that the overall debt limit is about to explode, yet the exact opposite is true. 

The first Heritage Foundation chart segment gap shows an increase of .3 trillion over 3.5 months, or, 0.085 trillion per month. The second gap shows an increase of 1.1 trillion over 19.3 months, an increase of 0.057 trillion per month, or, .028 trillion LESS per month than the first segment of the chart.  

If the debt was growing by .085 trillion per month, and that growth is now being reduced by .028 trillion per month, that is a 33% REDUCTION in the growth of the debt!  And that is not even taking into account that a significant portion of that growth is interest charges on the total debt.

In essence, the only growth in the federal budget debt at this point in time is directly related to interest rate charges being charged on the entire debt.

The Heritage Foundation chart is actually showing a SIGNIFICANT SLOW DOWN in the increase of the debt and is an IMPORTANT STEP towards reversing the growth in the federal debt.

However, the Heritage Foundation graph appears to imply that the federal debt is expanding at an ever increasing rate. 

The Heritage Foundation is not the only entity that either mistakenly or purposely misrepresents chart data. Many chart quoters will expose the top of a chart to make it look like something is exploding when a "wider view" of the chart would show the change is actually within a normal range. 

I used to listen to president Ronald Reagan explain how the increase in military spending for the next budget was the lowest percentage increase in many years. But now when President Obama can use the same language to explain that the budget increase is occuring in much smaller percentages, suddenly that falls on deaf ears in the conservative community.

It appears that some conservatives sometimes seem to use the concept of percentage of increase or percentage of decrease when it comes to the budget as a way to deceive the american public.

This type of chart and graph deception has been going on for years by many groups, not just the Heritage Foundation.

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

The 2013 Congressional Budget Impasse ObamaCare Solution.

DailyPUMA suggests that every state that voted for Barack Obama in 2012 go forward with ObamaCare. All the other states get one more year to get it together. This way those states that want to make ObamaCare work can proceed without the naysayers breathing down their necks every step of the way.

The idea that the states that voted for Barack Obama and ObamaCare are being stopped by the Republican portion of congress is absolutely outrageous and will hopefully result in democrat gains in 2014, if the Republican politicians continue down this path of obnoxious resistance regarding ObamaCare.

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

Republican Politicians seem incapable of solving problems or fixing anything, ObamaCare a perfect example.

I don't get the Republican party anymore. I used to hold out hope that the deranged, pro-banking no matter what, pro-war mission of the Republican party was at least offset by their desire to prevent fiscal democrat overspending and the democrat's penchant for handing out money to those who get out the vote for democrats.

However, what blows up this delicate check and balance is the Republican parties obtuseness when it comes to realizing that the longer the economy is tanked to benefit wall street, the more healthcare is needed on main street.

Rather than take on the challenge of making ObamaCare actually work, republican politicians have taken the easy way out and simply want to kill it. There is something succinctly obtuse about the pro-life Republican party wanting to kill ObamaCare without first trying to see if they could help make it work better.

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

Occupy News: Perplexed Politicians don't understand why majority of Public does not want War with Syria...

Occupy News: Perplexed Politicians don't understand why majority of  Public doesn't want war with Syria...: The same out of touch politicians who can't be bothered to learn about the lack of debt suspension rights for consumers are shocked that the majority of the U.S. public does not want a war with Syria over the alleged Syrian government chemical bombing of their own populace.

I would suggest that the U.S government's inability to catch up with social media rules is the underlying reason. The U.S. still demands complete compliance and secrecy with all it's own secret actions, even if those actions are questionable or illegal, but wants sympathy and support when other governments do wrong.....click here to read the rest of the article.

A Salon hit piece against Hillary Clinton, Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

Back in the late 90's, Arianna Huffington pitched a tv show idea to the networks in which she would debate Camille Paglia over issues of the day. Yet, it appears both now have similar viewpoints and makes one wonder, is Huffington Post using puppet strings to create anti Hillary Clinton sentiment elsewhere in the media, such as Salon magazine. 

How connected are ultra progressive Salon and Huffington Post? If you support Hillary Clinton, please consider responding in the comments section of Salon at the link below.

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

Move on Dot Org, aka Bank Transfer Day, attacks my Debt Suspension Rights Facebook page.

Click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

(Apparently the video above has now been removed).

I saw the above video on Bank Transfer Day's Facebook page and wrote the following response.  

lol, Move on dot org, they screwed over Hillary Clinton in 2008 by interfering in the democrat presidential nomination race before the voters had decided the outcome, and now they want to fix the mess they helped create, wow.

Bank Transfer Day sent me a message...

Click on message to enlarge, it's worth it. 

I only posted three different messages on Bank Transfer Day (which included the comment underneath the video and a separate response to another commenter), but that was enough for the Move On Dot Org nannies, or is that ninnies, to vow revenge against my facebook page, irrespective of how wonderfully proactive for consumers and solutions based my facebook page is.

This is why you should be afraid of both neo conservatives and progressive liberals, they think their shit never stinks and the other side is always wrong, and if you are not in step with their ideals, you are irrelevant.

I'm proud to be a moderate who supports Hillary Clinton, are you? 

If you agree that Debt Suspension Rights for Consumers, where are they?, is a legitimate cause, please like my facebook page.

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

Debt Suspension Rights: Fix Unfair Credit Card practices, Fix the U.S. Economy...

Debt Suspension Rights: Fix Unfair Credit Card practices, Fix the U.S. Eco...: In the United States, the following solutions would solve our economic situation, but they are not being done.  A. Offer Credit Card ...

Hi, Your comments matter greatly. If you post anonymously it helps if you briefly explain how your prior experiences relate to the comment you are leaving. Please no link ads unless you contact me first.

Why additional charges should be filed against George Zimmerman.

I knew from the beginning that the confrontation on the ground between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman would cloud another equally important issue. An armed dude playing unofficial security cop pursued an unarmed person who apparently had not broken any laws, and the armed dude never even identified himself.

I think George Zimmerman should be tried for impersonating a  security officer, abuse of power, and for not properly identifying himself to Trayvon Martin.

It seems like court cases that get played up in the media are being turned into a "contest" between two extreme points of view, in this instance, the extreme positions are did Zimmerman murder Trayvon Martin, or was Zimmerman "standing his ground"? 

How about Zimmerman was emboldened because he had a gun into pursuing an innocent person; Zimmerman never properly identified himself to the victim; nor did Zimmerman properly warn the victim he was armed. 

Zimmerman was so bad at his unpaid job of unpaid security officer that his actions directly led to the demise of another human being.

Doing an enforcement job poorly must be a violation of some aspect of the law, not to mention civil damages as well. If Zimmerman were smart, he would ask for a short sentence of two or three years in exchange for no civil suit being filed. I think Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death because of Zimmerman's actions PRIOR to their confrontation on the ground. Evidence that was not allowed in this trial will probably be allowed in a civil trial.

I don't want the armed George Zimmerman's of the world following me or you because they think you or I did something wrong. I don't want the armed George Zimmerman's of the world not properly identifying themselves to me or you.  I certainly don't want the armed George Zimmerman's of the world emboldened because they have a hidden weapon on their person that I know nothing about. 

Poor security officer skills should be worthy of additional charges being filed against Mr. Zimmerman, perhaps charges such as impersonating a security officer, or incompetently acting as a security officer and causing the death of another human.

I think other law enforcement types would have a FIELD DAY pointing out all the things that Mr. Zimmerman did wrong that day.

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

Republican Politicans, led by Darryl Issa, just can't comprehend basic terrorist strategies regarding Benghazi and against the U.S.

(Important Update - July 14, 2013). Please check out Debt Suspension Rights for innovative observations and solutions to the epidemic of credit card defaults and misrepresentations of Reverse Mortgages.

The inability of Republican politicians to understand basic terrorist tactics is alarming to me, and it should be to you. Republican politicians continue to beat the drum about Bhengazi and I wonder why they would rather support al queda terrorists versus their own president.

Lets play out a couple of scenarios regarding Benghazi.

Al Queda creates unrest in the surrounding area of the U.S. Diplomatic mission in Benghazi, they even launch an occasional very small explosive device over the compound. The devices don't destroy anything but do fray nerves.

The most obvious scenario is to bring troops to the compound.

Now try to imagine for a moment how Al Queda would have played that out.

Troops and military vehicles begin to show up at a diplomatic mission in Libya, a supposedly peaceful U.S. diplomatic mission. Most Libyan's already support the mission and like what the U.S. Mission is  trying to do help Libyans.

Suddenly american troops come in. In a country that just went through a civil war, had their leader assassinated, and are facing continued civil unrest, what are they to think? Now imagine Al Queda is around to talk into the ear of nearby Libyans and raise unrest further.

Imagine an Al Queda operative posing as a U.S. supporter suddenly being killed by american troops right around the U.S. diplomatic compound. Chaos ensues and suddenly there are massive demonstrations against america, all orchestrated by Al Queda.

The idea that heightened security would have absolutely prevented an escalation in violence is NONSENSE.  There is no way to know for sure.

Isn't it ironic that no matter what president Obama does with his foreign affairs policy, the republican politicians are there to cut him to the quick. Drone strikes instead of military force, Republicans feign outrage.  Reduction in troop strength in Afghanistan and Iraq, the republican politicians scream Obama is weakening America's resolve. Track phone numbers, the way they do every week on CSI (name your city) every week, Republicans feign outrage. Kill Osama Bin Laden, Republican politicians almost seemed annoyed.

The Republican strategy of outrage over any and all foreign policy actions that Barack Obama takes are just not much different than an Al Queda terrorist. I guess somebody had to come in and fill the void left by Osama Bin Laden.

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

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.