Joe Biden's "Hillary Clinton late to the Income Inequality fight" comment is Incomprehensible.

When Joe Biden says Hillary Clinton is "late to the Income Inequality fight", That's Joe being Joe. 

HIllary Clinton lost the 2008 democrat nomination to Barack Obama specifically because she was not going to cowtow to Wall Street and their home mortgage gambling shenanigans. 

Hillary Clinton had already proposed a 90 day moratorium on all home foreclosures until a solution could be worked out. President Obama's mortgage solution included Parallel Foreclosure in which any homeowner requesting any type of mortgage restructuring would also have foreclosure proceedings commence by the same bank that was allegedly helping to restructure the home mortgage. Parallel Foreclosure is why many homeowners were asked to keep resubmitting the same paperwork over and over by the bank allegedly helping them to avoid foreclosure so the banks could buy time until the foreclosure action was consummated. 

Agreeing to a Parallel Foreclosure policy was the price of the Democrat nomination in 2008 and Hillary Clinton did not go along with that deal, Barack Obama did. So for Mr. Biden to now say that Hillary Clinton is "late to the game" regarding income equality is "Joe being Joe" and displays an insane level of obtuseness on the part of Joe Biden.

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

Occupy Wall Street, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire when they claim that Move On Dot Org has been a tool for the Clintons.

It is amazing how quickly ignorant, people can become about the not so distant past, aka the 2008 Democrat Nomination. Here is a Move on dot org recruitment letter by Occupy Wall Street to its members….

Friends –

Last August, we asked you who you planned to support in the 2016 election. The results were overwhelming: Nearly 3/4's of you (74%) responded that you plan to vote for Bernie Sanders. Since then, Bernie has ramped up his anti-Wall Street rhetoric even more: renewing calls to break up the banks, limit ATM fees, take on inflated student loan debt and establish nationwide interest rate caps.

Today at 12pm EST, MoveOn.org begins their nationwide endorsement poll – and we can “hack” it for Bernie by signing up for free to vote.

We know: MoveOn.org is a tool for the Democratic party, and hasn't always been on our side. They have operated like clicktivism is more important than on-the-street-action. They’ve been too slow (or unwilling) to take on the big fights – let’s change that. Bernie brings an independent fervor to the party, and this endorsement could propel him into the White House. The possibility of that happening is exciting enough for the 99% that we think it's worth 2 minutes of your time to sign up for free before noon to vote. (Plus, you can always unsubscribe later on if all those emails annoy you!) 

MoveOn has been the voice for the Clinton Dynasty which it was created 17 years ago to defend. Today, though, we have a chance to close the books on the Clinton-Bush era and bring in a strong, independent democratic socialist voice:we think it's time to #MoveOnToBernie! 

And keep fighting, comrades.

The OccupyWallSt.NYC Team 

End of Occupy Wall Street Missive.   End of Occupy Wall Street "missive" to its "comrades" quote.

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

For the record, Move on Dot Org has NEVER supported the Clintons. Move on Dot Org is a progressive group and Occupy Wall Street's claim that Move on Dot Org is a front for the Clinton is a manipulative, ignorant, lie. 

See, THEY ALL LIE, even the alleged truth speakers. 

I would happily help Hillary Clinton win the democrat nomination but it would cost her campaign one million dollars. The progressive millennials may be Hillary Clinton's undoing and I know how to get them in her camp, and for a million dollars I would share the information with Hillary Clinton or her people. Expect a strategically timed smear involving email gate, the Move on dot org vote supporting Bernie Sanders, and a possibly too close loss or even victory in New Hampshire to help amp up unwarranted opposition to Hillary Clinton in her quest for a democrat nomination. 

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

Joseph Cannon of CannonFire Recovering from a Medical Experience.

As the founder of Daily PUMA I don't come here for the Daily PUMA articles, but rather for the written works of others that are RSS fed onto Daily PUMA. Probably my favorite writer is Joseph Cannon, of CannonFire, who apparently is recovering from a serious medical situation. You can learn more about Joseph's situation here and to wish him a solid recovery.

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

Should Hillary Clinton and the Democrats invite some of the Republican Presidential Candidates to the Democrat Debates?

The obvious answer is NO, no way should the democrat candidates or democrat party invite any of the republican candidates to the democrat debates or any debate before each party has an official nominee. That's the obvious answer. 

I wonder what the public would think of the democrat party for extending an opportunity to basically give some republican candidates a free shot at the democrats when the democrats might have little to gain.

Do we maybe live in a world where people recognize and admire those who have the lead but still give chances to those who would take them down in an instant? 

Might giving such an opportunity be the genesis to more tolerable relations between the two parties?

Why should the democrat party stay too comfortable when many americans are living paycheck to paycheck?

The only thing missing from the Republican debates is a metal cage surrounding the debaters. Might be a nice gesture to allow a few of the cage match republican debaters a chance outside of the cage.

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

The Real Email Scandal the Democrat Party needs to deal with.

I won't disclose my financial situation but I finally made a contribution to Hillary Clinton's campaign recently even though I could not afford it. (ha ha). Yes, it was ego driven, I wanted my name put on the wall in the Clinton campaign headquarters. Make a contribution, get your name on the wall. Yes a clever idea, although I don't think the wall is going to be big enough. I also wanted to make sure I EARNED my name on the "Wall of Acclaim" so I made a donation that was many many many times higher than the minimum donation of 5 dollars.

The problem is I keep getting emails asking me to contribute. I just gave a contribution and the democrat email system has no way to riffle out those who just made a donation from those who haven't, and that annoys me. If the democrat email system can't parse out those who just contributed and acknowledge their contribution in future emails, they begin to create ill will among their contributors. I almost sent a second contribution to the Wall of Acclaim thinking the first one did not take. But then my credit card bill came and the credit card I have been diligently trying to pay off went north for the first time in over a year, and frankly it made me wince.

If I were the democrat party I WOULD QUIT SELLING my email lists to an incongruous group of needy people all asking for money and all oblivious to how many others have already asked me for money.

I have some amazing campaign ideas that if sold to either the Republican party or the Democrat party would win them the presidency in 2016, but I have decided I am not going to give them away. If I don't see meaningful change in how the democrat party handles their email messaging, I may actually consider selling my ideas to Donald Trump simply because my ideas would actually help seniors and the economy, which in turn helps everyone else. Sometimes actually having ideas matters more than asking for money to become president.

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

When Hillary Clinton Lashes out she's called nasty names, when Donald Trump Lashes out he Gains in Popularity and also becomes the First Conservative Ralph Nader.

When I would watch the NBC / Donald Trump show The Apprentice (I stopped watching once I discovered how good The Good Wife was and it was on at the same time on CBS), I was pretty impressed with how Mr. Trump came across and wondered how much of that was manipulated by editing after the fact. 

Since witnessing Mr. Trump's rise in the Republican president polls I must say Mr. Trump has shown an ability to think on his feet when ambushed by the media, such as being accused of being a misogynist. Mr. Trump retorted that it's only Rosie O'Donnell and her big fat head that bugs him (or something like that). Mr. Trump's response was a pretty good comeback considering he was blindsided by the question. I found Mr. Trump's instant retort a peculiarly hilarious response because he admits to doing something, but to only one person, and not only does Mr. Trump believe that Rosie O'Donnell deserves the comments Mr. Trump has made about Rosie in the past, Mr. Trump knows Rosie is a tough enough person to take it and dish it back, basically implying that Rosie is his equal as a sparring partner who also punches back and that's not misogyny, that's a combative form of respect between two people who don't like each other. Whereas a true misogynist would more likely operate more under the cloak of darkness and secrecy such as the KKK when attacking those they don't like.

I also found Mr. Trump's curt and discourteous response about John McCain being a "captured" war hero remarkable as well. And for those who are annoyed by it, lets not forget it was the Barack Obama supporters who probably gave Mr. McCain the biggest insult of all 8 years ago when they said it would not be wise to vote for Mr. McCain for president because he was a cancer risk and at his advanced age it would not be safe to have him for president. That was 8 years ago and Mr. McCain and his now 102 year old mother would beg to differ, and when do the Obama concern trolls about John McCain and his date with cancer as a reason to not vote for Mr. McCain, apologize to Mr. McCain?

Mr. Trump appears to have become the conservative version of Ralph Nader. Republicans have spent decades witnessing Democrats whining and loathing about the U.S. as a way to gain votes, yet for the first time in quite a while the Republican Party has been revitalized by Mr. Trump's Ralph Nader conservatism firebrand. However, what Mr. Trump appears to lack are some examples of having actually achieved Ralph Nader type of victories from a conservative point of view in his past in which he fought for the common man and woman, and won. 

If Mr. Trump is now able to spot good ideas and make them part of his presidential platform going forward, that could be good enough to make him the republican nominee and a realistic challenger to "presumptive democrat nominee", Hillary Clinton.

And all of this brings us to the point of this article. While the media has been whipped up into a frenzy over Mr. Trump's political rambunctiousness, one takeaway not yet taken away is if Hillary Clinton ever behaved in the manner that Donald Trump has behaved, the non complementary names she would be called would stretch a mile long and a mile deep, and that is something I hope the Republican Party AND Progressives as well will accept some "mea culpa" for and tone down their "Attack Hillary Rhetoric" going forward. 

Or are only men presidential candidates allowed to whine and complain about things?

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

Neo Con Dingalings, Benghazi, and the Current Attack on the Internet that is being Reported as not Happening.

One of the "outrages" that neocons had over Benghazi was the blaming of the attack on a documentary video that had come out prior to the attack. NeoCons outrage centered on the documentary lie. You see, Neo Cons were DEMANDING that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton bow at the feet of the terrorists and claim defeat and by instead incorrectly crediting a documentary the terrorists were denied credit for their attack. lol, I'm serious, this is how deranged neocons can be when it comes to Obama and Clinton. 

According to Neocons, Obama and Clinton were supposed to elevate, empower and credit terrorists groups for Benghazi rather than minimize their act of terrorism. And lets not forget that EVERYDAY in the U.S. 22 veterans commit suicide. Rather than help lower that number, Benghazi nuts want to forever go on and on about Benghazi even at the expense of diverting attention away from reducing DAILY VETERAN SUICIDES in the U.S.

Over the past few days, there have been several server outages. From Airlines to Wall Street, there have been significant outages that have been DOWNPLAYED by the media, even the California Bureau of Automotive repair was down a day. If the reports in the media about these outages had been more dire, panic would have ensued and there would be even more internet traffic, possibly compromising the internet's capacity even more.

As you can see both examples above point to a KNOWN type of defense against terrorist attacks, it's called MINIMIZING the attack in the media in an effort to DEMORALIZE the attackers. So as the Neocons continue to blather on about Benghazi and condemning Obama and Clinton for blaming the Benghazi attack on a documentary, just remember that the worst thing one can do for a terrorist in this day and age of social media is to admit a terrorist attack was 100% successful.

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

How the Neo Con and Progressive Media plan on destroying Hillary Clinton's Moderate Based 2016 Presidential Campaign..

I don't recall seeing the newsprint reporting technique being used to derail the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign before, maybe its been done, I just don't recall seeing it done before. The technique involves showing an interaction between the Clintons and ANYONE who is famous, then intercutting that interaction with an everyday person who has a gripe with the famous person that has been attached to the  Clintons and how they can't believe the Clintons would even breathe the same air as that famous person, let alone interact with them.

A reporter does a detailed interview with someone who has what is either a ridiculous complaint, or even a legitimate complaint about the Clintons and through the magic of editing makes it look like the Clintons are hobnobbing with the rich and famous while PURPOSELY avoiding talking to the person that the reporter has questioned.

This "cross cutting" technique is very clever because it gives the illusion that the Clintons have blown off an every day man or woman in favor of a famous or wealthy person. But the reality is there are over 300 million people in the United States, are the Clintons supposed to be able to allow any one of the 300 million people to have instant access to them?

I have a plan on how Hillary Clinton can win the 2016 presidential election and avoid most of the inevitable progressive and neo con media created controversy that is sure to follow her, yet I hold no belief that anyone will contact me, let alone pay me a consulting fee for handing Hillary Clinton the keys to the White House in 2016.

If the Clintons access and consider their own long time supporter's ideas and suggestions they simply increase their own agility to handle  the new world of social media. 

Here is a quick example of the Cross Cutting technique and how grossly effective it is when applied to television. When dead US soldiers were being flown home during our first George Bush presidency, one of the news stations did a split screen showing the war dead's caskets being taken off a military airplane while on the other screen hundreds if not thousands of miles away George Bush was shown laughing at a different event he was at. The initial false impression given is that George Bush was actually looking at the caskets and laughing. This over the top stunt somewhat backfired as the news division responsible had to issue an apology. Although it does make one wonder why then President Bush was not at the airfield where the war dead were.

When this type of implied connectedness, or cross cutting, is done in print, it can be less obvious that the two events really don't relate in the manner that the article conveys.

What is the solution? Those who really feel the Clintons have favored the rich elite over the everyday man or woman should take the time to contact the Clinton Foundation and allow them time to respond to their complaints if they genuinely want to know the truth.

In the meantime, here's hoping the Clintons realize there are people on their side who have good ideas and suggestions and that the Clintons should embrace their supporters rather than keep fending for themselves against an aggressive progressive and neo con media that does not want to see Hillary Clinton as president in 2016.

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

Message from both Neo Con and Progessive Media to the Clinton Foundation, You can't have your donations and eat them too.

So now George Stephanopoulos is apologizing for donating to the Clinton Foundation? So basically anyone who donates to the Clinton Foundation is bribing the Clintons. lol. Remember, this is what the rotting remnants of both neo conservative media and progressive media do to try and make the Clintons look fallible.

If Robin Hood's last name had been Clinton he would have been remembered as someone who robbed from the rich and gave to those he had first made poor.

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

Washington Post Raves about the Clinton Foundation...

A quote from the Washington Post regarding the Clinton Foundation...

"The foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs. Major donations have come from figures such as Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of the conservative Web site Newsmax.com and a onetime critic of Bill Clinton".

The media is comprised of either neo con or progressive liberal media, as moderates, the Clinton's will continue to be under attack by somebody.

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

Republicans & Media Decide Classified Information does not exist anymore as they attack Hillary Clinton's presidential bid before it starts.

What is getting lost amidst the attempts to get email gate running at full speed is the concept of classified information. Is nothing classified anymore? I'm not against the concept of transparency but who passed the law that made all political documents declassified whenever congress snaps its fingers?

And if everything has suddenly become declassified, how come George Bush JR repeatedly ignored congressional requests and supoenas?  

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE BUSH IGNORED SUPOENAS

When it comes to negotiating with other countries, if a political figure or cabinet member knows that everything they say or do is declassified even as they state a plan of action in a classified setting, their position of authority is stripped even before they say or do anything.

Here's a final thought, the Osama Bin Laden assassination, is Congress entitled to view ALL documents related to that event? Because it seems to me that would expose people to death threats. So which is it, a bi-partisian Congress can ask for anything and all things whenever they want, or, somehow a bi-partisian congress magically knows when to ask and when not to ask for documents and content they have not seen and therefore all of their requests should always be followed to the letter of their demand? 

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

If you want a taste of how bad it will be if the republican party make gains in 2016 elections, look at their recent behavior.

First there is Benghazi. What Daily PUMA finds so strange is if Benghazi is supposed to lead to shame and dishonor for democrats, then what the heck was 911? Bush and his cabinet were warned about threats against the United State, yet FOUR, FOUR planes were taken over and did undeniable damage HERE IN THE U.S.! 

How can a sane or rational person in any way, shape or form even begin to imply that Benghazi is anything more than a speck in the dust when compared to Bush's botching of 911. Democrats probably did the right thing by rallying around George Bush (although there will always be suspicions that dark forces possibly from within the U.S. assisted the terrorists by placing GPS tracking devices inside of the intended targets) rather than verbally assaulting his administration for lapses in vision.

And lets not forget the NUMEROUS blunders during the Reagan / Bush era in which the country rallied around the president versus having the democrats assault the republican administration in power for lack of judgement.

Then there are the 22 veterans who are committing suicide everyday in the U.S. while the Benghazi Bombastards continue to divert attention and resources away from the 22 daily veteran suicides and onto more and more Benghazi investigations.

Then there was EbolaGate. Whenever Obama brought up Ebola, Republican politicians complained Obama was politicizing the issue. Yet several Republican governors grandstanded just before the 2014 November elections complaining the federal government was dragging its feet on an ebola policy and therefore they were imposing their own rules and regulations immediately. The timing of the move just before the 2014 fall elections was beyond suspicious, the lack of a dual press conference in which the president and the governors spoke in unison on the ebola issue was appalling.

Not to be outdone, Republican politicians then outdid themselves again by allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress just before the recent Israeli elections. In essence, a republican majority congress interfered in foreign policy by helping re-elect a specific political ally they wanted via the PR boost the prime minister received by speaking in front of congress. The president leads on foreign policy, not congress.

As if that was not enough, 47 congressional republicans also sent a letter to Iran saying they would not honor any peace agreement reached between Barack Obama and Iran! If the Republicans do have a war mongering, pro bank, middle class obtuseness reputation, these are the types of actions that just reinforce that viewpoint to a majority of americans. 

What odds would you place on the Republican majority congress sending a letter to Iran asking them to go solar energy instead of nuclear energy. Pretty much next to impossible, no?

Once again the democrats will let the "over the top", possibly treasonous actions taken by some Republican politicians go unsanctioned when clearly some republican politicians have stepped over the line of treason with their recent foreign policy interference.

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

Why Isn't the US building a fresh water pipeline from the midwest to drought plagued areas in the U.S.?

Why Isn't the US building a fresh water pipeline from the midwest to drought plagued areas in the U.S.?

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

Move On dot org Polarizing the 2016 Presidential Democrat Race.

In 2008 the mega polarizers of the democrat party including Huffington Post, Move on dot org, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, MSNBC, and others claimed that Hillary Clinton was "polarizing".

It is now 2016 and one of those polarizing elements of the 2008 race who accused Hillary Clinton of being a polarizing influence are turning out to be the BIGGEST polarizers of them all, that group is Move On dot org.

Excerpt below from a Move-on dot org email. And, just clicking on the link makes one an Elizabeth Warren petition supporter even without seeing what one is clicking on first! FIVE BLIND CALL TO ACTION LINKS that automatically mean support for Elizabeth Warren running for the democrat presidential nomination, all in just this one email.  wow. I've defused the links so they are not active in this article on Daily PUMA's page.

Just because Warren might do well in the first two democrat presidential caucus and primary contests simply means Warren could weaken Hillary Clinton in the long run, and that is the very definition of polarizing, no?

Dear MoveOn member,

We commissioned a poll about Senator Elizabeth Warren's standing in critical presidential primary states, and the results are stunning: When Democratic Iowa Caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters get to know Elizabeth Warren, they overwhelmingly want her to run for president.¹ Our poll shows that if Warren ran, she'd have a real shot. Now it's up to us, together, to convince her to run.  Click here to automatically sign our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We turned to industry leaders at YouGov to conduct this poll, and this is what they found: Voters love Senator Warren's personal story, her status (asTime put it) as a "new sheriff of Wall Street,"² and, importantly, her major legislative proposals—lowering student-loan interest rates, expanding Social Security, breaking up the big banks, and holding Wall Street criminals accountable.This poll shows unequivocally that a majority of voters in the two critical states of Iowa and New Hampshire are what we'd call "moveable"—they're open to supporting Sen. Warren if we can tell them what she stands for. Realistically, the results don't say that Sen. Warren would win today—but they show that Sen. Warren has a real opportunity to build the levels of support she would need to win in both states if she decided to run. Now, it's up to us to keep urging her to get in the race. Will you join us? Click here to automatically join our petition, which says, "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." We can make these poll results send shock waves through the political press. And through some very strategic targeting—we can get them in front of real influencers in Washington and people close to Sen. Warren. But first, we need to show that our movement continues to grow. That's why we're asking you to sign our petition today, help us get hit our latest goal of 300,000 signatures, and show that the momentum from our campaign keeps growing. Click here to automatically join our petition. It says "Dear Elizabeth Warren: Please Run for President." Let's dig into the polling numbers a little bit.Our results show that after these likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren's biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79% say they want her to run, but, in both states, Sen. Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.Here's more:

• 97% of survey respondents across both Iowa and New Hampshire agree with Warren's call to lower student-loan interest rates. 

• 92% agree with Sen. Warren's call to expand Social Security benefits.

• 91% agree with her statement about breaking up the big banks.

Those numbers prove that Elizabeth Warren's vision is powerfully resonant with the voters she would need to win the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary—especially the young voters who'll be critical to any victory in 2016. Sen. Warren holds more than a 20-point lead in a head-to-head match-up with other potential candidates among respondents ages 18-29, once they learn about her. Thanks to these results, we know that support for a contested primary is nearly unanimous among all age groups, and that a core segment of the winning Obama coalition—young people—are particularly excited about Sen. Warren.Our job now is to capitalize on these results—and we can do just that by showing that this news is encouraging more and more people to join the Run Warren Run movement.  Will you join more than 283,000 other Elizabeth Warren supporters by automatically signing our petition? Just click here. This polling shows that Elizabeth Warren has a clear chance to obtain the support she needs to win—and that her story and message resonate deeply with voters.By continuing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of America's working families and working to create a more level economic playing field, Sen. Warren herself could have more than a fighting chance of earning the Democratic nomination for president—and we're intent on proving that to her.  Click here to automatically sign the petition, and join the growing movement.  Thanks for all you do.–Mark, Ilya, Erica, Ben O., and the rest of the teamP.S. Want to see the detailed poll results? Click here to read our memo and results.Sources:1. "MUST SEE: Poll Shows Big Opening for Elizabeth Warren in IA, NH," MoveOn, February 11, 2015 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=302997&id=108356-27787899-1XnYU_x&t=72. "The New Sheriffs of Wall Street," Time, May 13, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=302998&id=108356-27787899-1XnYU_x&t=8 Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Start a monthly donation here or chip in a one time donaton here. PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to #####  ########### on February 11, 2015. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. 

Move On Dot Org Re-Stabs Hillary Clinton in the back with their ongoing drive to get Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 presidential race.

Daily Puma warned several years ago that the progressive wing of the democrat party would find a candidate other than Hillary Clinton to fall in love with for the 2016 presidential campaign. All you Move-on dot org supporters and supporters of their Causes petition platform help feed the anti-Hillary Clinton Move-on Dot org beast.

Here is an example where Move-on Dot Org uses a Hillary Clinton youtube video while on the side of the page they are endorsing Elizabeth Warren for 2016!

Fire Dog Lake excoriating Hillary Clinton for "attacking" Move on Dot org back in 2008.

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

Barack Obama staffers stab Hillary Clinton in the Back, probably committing illegal acts by being employed by Obama Administration while promoting Warren at the same time.

While DailyPUMA is not surprised to see Barack Obama staffers stabbing Hillary Clinton in the back and supporting Elizabeth Warren for 2016, it's also probably because the Barack Obama staffers are soon to be out of work.

Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Barack Obama staffers being paid by taxpayer money even as they scope out and promote their next meal ticket in Elizabeth Warren. That's actually illegal. 

If these Barack Obama staffers want to resign their Barack Obama jobs and promote Elizabeth Warren, that is one thing, but to do it while being paid by Barack Obama is incredibly obtuse, wrong, stupid, narcissistic, and probably grounds for these staffers to lose their jobs.

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

US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion

This article link, US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 trillion basically states we will pay trillions in interest rate charges on the war debt. More than enough money to completely absorb research, development & production costs for ultra efficient solar and wind technologies.

The U.S. is probably spending 10 billion dollars a MONTH in interest rate charges just to service the war debt of the past 10 years. If the war was a noble cause, then why are those who loaned the war money profiting so handsomely and for so long?

Democrat Fundraising emails becoming Like Republicans, no new ideas, just asking for more and more money.

The democrat party seems to think that blasting their base with political fundraising emails several times a day asking for money donations will lead to victory in close congressional elections in November, 2014. 

What the democrats should be doing is telling its mailing list how they are going to help both republican and democrat consumers lower their growing consumer debt. It's really that simple.

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

13 Benghazi's during George Bush Jr's presidency, and Ronald Reagen's presidency had their share of Benghazi moments as well.

Not only did the George Bush Jr. presidency have several Benghazi's his watch Go back even further and the Reagan presidency had their own Benghazi moments as well.

I believe more important than getting into a republican vs democrat debate on the Benghazi issue are the 22 veteran suicides that occur EVERYDAY in the USA.

Here is a group called "Saddles For Soldiers" that is trying to make a difference. Here is another group..."Ride to Recovery" that helps wounded warriors who are back in the U.S. 

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

Looks like DailyPUMA went over the one million mark in hits around Tuesday, August 19th, 2014.

Just noticed now, two days later, that DailyPUMA went over the 1 million visitors mark. Not sure how the google counter works since different stat counters don't pick up the same number of hits as the google counter does.

Sure wish bloggers who are always on one side or the other of the political spectrum would figure out how to be moderate from time to time.

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

AlexLOGIC WORDS and PHRASES: Forever Debt.

AlexLOGIC WORDS and PHRASES: Forever Debt.: What is Forever Debt? Forever Debt is debt that is downplayed by economists as "serviceable" on a monthly basis. However what economist fail to mention (to read the rest please click on the link above).

Military Veterans who died while waiting to schedule medical appointments, what might have caused this situation.

Seems strange that there always seems to be a controversy regarding veteran medical care. During the Bush Jr. administration, squalid conditions were reported in veterans hospitals. Apparently they were then cleaned up.  

Now in Barack Obama's term, we hear reports that dozens or perhaps hundreds or maybe even thousands of veterans were delayed before being able to set an appointment. Apparently significant numbers of veterans died while waiting to either set an appointment, or to be seen after making an appointment.

I was watching David Letterman a night or two ago as he interviewed a highly decorated medal of valor when suddenly the reason hit me as to why these ongoing Veteran Medical care problems may exist. The Letterman medal of valor guest had dived on a grenade to save the soldiers around him. Mission accomplished, except for himself.

I do not recall how many surgeries this soldier went through, but it was around a 100 at the very least. Suddenly I understood the conundrum the military hospitals face on a daily basis. Intake one soldier who gave up so much, and the instinct to give them back their life as much as possible takes over.

Here is where it gets twisted. No matter how one does a military hospital budget, it may be inevitable that 2% of the patients will require 50% or more of the hospital resources. It's very difficult for that fact to be acknowledged by the bean counters and number crunchers and the result is what we get, delays for the many so the deserving few get a chance to live a semi normal life again.

Even if military hospital budgets were doubled, it still could mean that 5% of the patients require 50% of the hospital's resources, which could still mean a waiting period for others who have not been "intaked" yet.

I am very curious if the war profiteer companies ever step up and donate any of their dozens of billions of dollars in profits to help out the military hospitals in the U.S.

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

Is it too simplistic to correlate a solid U.S. Economy with reduced war activity?

Just going back over the past few presidencies, Is there a correlation between reduced war activity and the U.S. economy? 

Most would agree the economy was the healthiest during Bill Clinton's presidency, and for the most part, Bill Clinton stayed away from war other than the final couple of years of his presidency, and ironically, that is when his economy started to show signs of stalling.

Neither George Bush Senior or Jr. led a sustained economic growth other than having economic indicators drop so low that the rebound could be made to look like a solid economic recovery. The only perceived improvement during the Obama years seems to coincide with reduced troop sizes in war zones.

Then we have way too may wall street investment firms coming up with way too many investment schemes that add nothing to the economy but do allow them to take their cut up front. Ironically Wall Street may re-invest their undeserved profit in ways that can actually ruin the prior investment which still has to run its course, oh the irony of that.

What the media calls an improved economy and what I see as an improved economy are two different things. I see the reduction of non-renewable energy in conjunction with sustained economic activity the ideal goal. The media tends to simply view it as how much stuff got consumed and whether or not the numbers can be spun that increased consumer debt is a good thing because it is based on "consumer confidence".

Imagine if all that war money were here at home, being used for excellent health care for veterans, and perhaps several hundred thousand jobs in renewable energy creation, observation (where to place wind energy and solar cells, and installation.

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

Republican Impeachment Buzzards keep U.S. imperiled.

The latest conservative impeachment talk concerns the recent five for one prisoner trade with the taliban. Isn't it possible the five for one trade was tied into the upcoming reduction of american troops from Afghanistan? Is it possible the purpose of the prisoner trade was to warn the Taliban via their own returned prisoners that lower american troop totals in Afghanistan could mean more aggressive air and drone attacks, not less?

I don't pretend to know, but isn't it possible that whenever prisoner "trades" are made it is to further some type of line of communication that may benefit all in the future? It's possible right? 

If so, then why is it acceptable for republican blowhard politicians to immediately undermine any military move made by the present democrat administration? The automatic and instant undermining of the administrations actions is the very definition of a terrorist, no?

Maybe if the Republicans weren't still diverting much needed attention elsewhere back to Benghazi, they would have been included in the hostage discussion before it happened. Clearly Republican politicians have become so untrustworthy the president can't confide in them on most issues, and that is the real story behind Benghazi and the five for one prison trade.

And this repetitive cycle just means the next important issue in which republican politicians should be consulted with, will be the next important issue in which they are not consulted with. And the non-visionary republican politicians seem to like it that way since they can simply stay on the sidelines, have no real perspective, then bitch and moan whenever President Obama makes a military decision.

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

Karl Rove Channels Hill Street Blues for his latest tirade against Hillary Clinton.

Clearly Karl Rove wants "Fresh" when it comes to our 2016 democrat presidential candidates, but can Karl Rove pass the "fresh test" himself? 

Otherwise, what is the point of a rotten headed Rove demanding fresh anything?

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

At some point, Hillary Clinton supporters are going to have to start beating the snot out of Shoe Throwers, Benghazi Bobble Heads, Tea Party Puffers and Progressive Posers.

You Hillary Clinton supporters, quit being the classiest supporters among all the 2016 prospective presidential candidates. You know you are the classiest. You are the ones who are CareGivers, work a job and raise a family, have your own small business and want to treat your workers fairly, even when they don't deserve it.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton Supporters are generally the nicest people, and the poorest people as well. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton supporters are also the ones who groan when their presidential candidate has a shoe thrown at her.

You Hillary Clinton supporters, I hope the Hillary Clinton Vegas Shoe Throwing incident was your wake up call. You can't just sit and ooh and ahh from the audience when someone throws a shoe at your presidential candidate. You literally have to kick the tar out of the person doing the throwing. 

Start a riot in protest of the Benghazi Bubbleheads, Scald the Tea Party Puffers who couldn't give a crap if 10 of their neighbors lost their homes to unfair foreclosure tactics as long as they can keep cradling their own gun, and punt the Progressive Posers back into la la land who are clueless when it comes to feeling YOUR pain.

Heck, the shoe thrower just turned around and walked out. I think she actually raised her hands to be identified, meanwhile, gasps are heard from the audience. Gasps? Are you effin kidding me? Gasps?

You women in the audience, why didn't you tackle the shoe thrower and pull on her hair and then take her other shoe off and hit her with it? 

I'm serious. 

Hillary Clinton supporters are considered a joke by the other political factions. You should be embarrassed for not rushing forward to protect your presidential candidate, and you should be mad as hell and not going to take it anymore going forward.

Millions of americans lost their homes to foreclosure after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and millions more CONTINUE to lose their homes because the democrat party backed a banking puppeteer who could not feel your pain and actually address the mathematical shenanigans that are robbing the non rich elite of their homes. 

Are you really going to just sit back and make groaning noises whenever someone takes a physical or verbal shot at Hillary Clinton? 

Really?

You Hillary Clinton Supporters should come to a Hillary Clinton Rally loaded for Benghazi Bobble Heads, Tea Party Puffers, and Progressive Posers who all want a piece of Hillary Clinton and have no fear that Hillary Clinton supporters actually have her back.

Do you have Hillary Clinton's back? 

If you don't have Hillary Clinton's back, then GET OUT OF THE WAY or, GET YOUR BACKBONE OUT TRACTION otherwise I'll be the one throwing the next shoe at you!

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

Will Tax Reform Act of 2014 do more harm than good? Will the Getty Center lose its Funding?

One proposal from the 2014 Tax Reform Act of 2014 that has apparently some in the non-profit world concerned is a proposal that all non-profit funds can only be kept for five years. I find this proposal typical of what is wrong with how the present government thinks.

Why should only the non-profit sector be forced to pay down their wealth in five years, what about applying the 5 year spend down rule to the private sector, the billionaires and trillionaires as well. This is typical rule making that may adversely affect everyone but the rich elite.

And yet, I would much rather see consumers being given incentives to pay down their debts so that they can generate more local commerce, which in turn would increase government revenue at both the state and federal level while giving more people an income stream first, than telling anyone how and when to spend their money.

In the meantime, will we be saying goodbye to the J Paul Getty Center in Los Angeles if this 5 year spend down rule becomes law?

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

Jon Stewart exposes Fox News Food Stamp Hysteria.

I recall Jon Stewart being one of the media in 2008 that could not shut up about the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama nomination race and simply let the voters decide, and instead pretty much came down in favor of Barack Obama. Probably because of his audience demographics. 

But in this instance, I think his take on Fox News expose' on food stamps is hilarious. The segment about "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats for a lifetime" is priceless.

What I find disturbing is how Fox allows all of these accusations to be made without verifying if any of them are even true.

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

More Evidence of the Integrity of the Bill Clinton Administration (and Hillary Clinton) regarding Health Care and what to say and not say.

I believe there really was a lot of heartfelt, intelligent internal White House discussions during the Bill Clinton years in the 90's. While Barack Obama had no problem slinging out impossible promises regarding ObamaCare, the Clintons purposely stayed away from false promises. CNN exposes the difference in this article.    

I've said it before, I'll say it now. Hillary Clinton was thrown under the bus in 2008 by George Soros and the higher echelon of the democrat party because she was not going to take crap from Wall Street, and she was not going to deceive the american people over Health Care Reform.

For Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign, it seems like it really was about the sky opening up and celestial angels singing and change would magically happen, aka, saying whatever it took to get elected.

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

The Comedy of Rand Paul, straight from Wikipedia.

As you can see, I am crediting my source regarding Rand Paul plagiarizing several of his own speeches. I guess since I am crediting my source for this Rand Paul Plagiarizing speeches article I now cannot run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

In October 2013, Paul was the subject of some controversy when it was discovered that he had plagiarized from Wikipedia part of a speech in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. Referencing the movie Gattaca, Paul quoted almost verbatim from the Wikipedia article about the film without citing the source.[111][112][113]

Evidence soon surfaced that Paul had copied passages in a number of his other speeches and published works nearly verbatim from other authors without giving credit to the original sources,[114][115] including in the speech he had given as the Tea Party rebuttal to the president's 2013 State of the Union address and in a three-page-long passage of Paul's book Government Bullies, which was taken directly from an article by the conservative think thank The Heritage Foundation.[116][117]  

When it became apparent that an op-ed article Paul had published in the Washington Times and testimony he had given before the Senate Judiciary Committee both contained material that was virtually identical to an article that had been published by another author in The Week a few days earlier,[118] the Washington Times said that the newspaper would no longer publish the weekly column Paul had been contributing to the paper.[119] 

After a week of almost daily news reports of new allegations of plagiarism, Paul said that he was being held to an "unfair standard", but would restructure his office in order to prevent mistakes in the future, if that would be what it would take "to make people leave me the hell alone".[120]

End of quote from Wikipedia.

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