The Strange Supreme Court case of Nancy Pelosi vs Joe Biden

Nancy Pelosi and the Biden White House sued each other over a lawsuit first filed by Pelosi when Trump was President. 

Apparently it was completely acceptable to sue Trump over using Defense budget funds to fund the Wall, the core reason Trump was elected to be President, but suddenly Joe Biden sees the error of Pelosi's ways and wanted the lawsuit set aside as the two duked it out in the Supreme Court.

California has become a legal scourge against common sense when it comes to Building a Wall. While California clamored for more and more funding to allow homelessness to thrive California also demanded the flood gates be left open so more Undocumented enter California every year than there are homeless. Any move Trump made in regards to Building the Wall in California was instantly shadowed and responded to by Gavin Newsom and former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

Now that Biden is President, he realizes just how insane Nancy Pelosi's lawsuit was and he wants it rescinded. Pelosi disagrees and the two filed legal briefs in opposition to each other with the Supreme Court. These are the people in control of our Government?

Here is an excerpt from the article...

Trump wanted $5 billion in a fiscal 2019 spending bill to build a wall, one of his main campaign promises. Congress appropriated only $1.375 billion for fencing. But after the shutdown, Trump announced plans to transfer up to $8.1 billion from other funds for the border wall construction.

The Democratic-led House argued the move violated the Appropriations Clause in a way that usurps Congress’ authority over spending — and a key part of the lawsuit was whether the House by itself could go to the courts to stop the spending.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in 2020 that the House had the right to sue, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi called at the time “a strong victory for the Constitution and the rule of law.”

This year, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to erase that ruling, arguing that it could put federal courts in the middle of an “infinite” number of spending disputes between a president and one chamber of Congress.

The House countered in a brief that future courts would be unlikely to read the D.C. Circuit opinion to apply to other situations because of the “remarkable circumstances — unique in our nation’s history,” that caused the legal fight in the first place.

Also, the House argued that the appellate court’s ruling did not address many of the other more substantive issues in the case, even as basic as whether the House could jump over other procedural hurdles. 

So Progressives and the White House fought with each other over Pelosi's Insurrection against the will of the voters who wanted a Wall Built. Now Pelosi continues to fan flames over January 6th, 2021 which was a reaction to the constant attacks against Trump during his tenure.

The Supreme Court took the clever way out, stating that since Donald Trump is no longer President, the lawsuit has no standing and therefore it is as if it never happened. But the lawsuit did happen and millions of American Citizens will go with either higher taxes or less entitlements because of the resources that will continue to be diverted to anything related to the Undocumented who continue to stream in, in record numbers. Because there is no wall lots of Instant Entitlements with the names of the Undocumented continue to be  earmarked in exchange for their future vote.

Progressive constituents who don't read other viewpoints may soon have to consume their Kool Aid by the Boat load. Maybe that explains what is inside the record number of backlogged cargo ships on the West Coast.

Build the Wall so U.S. Seniors can receive the full extent of their Entitlements they spent decades earning.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

CDC Home Quarantine Policy an 18 month work in Progress, Part II.

For the first 18 months of COVID-19, NO treatment protocols were suggested during home quarantine that might reduce the overall impact of COVID-19 were the person to actually get sick. 

But now, there is a COVID Drug that may be very effective that can be given during Home Quarantine. 

It seems as if the CDC is fine with drug remedies, even if it takes 18 months to come up with one.

Suddenly, now it is a big deal among the medical community that there was no treatment protocol available during Home Quarantine because now there is a DRUG one can take to allegedly reduce the effects of COVID-19.

Has healthcare become Drug Care in the United States? The Mainstream Media, Twitter, and Progressives blamed Donald Trump for 600,000 COVID deaths and we will never know how many COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented if the Mainstream Media had not attacked Trump's efforts to discover if any existing drugs or treatments might have been effective. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

CDC Home Quarantine Policy an 18 month work in progress.

According to the CDC, the vaccines do not prevent transmission. For the first 18 months of COVID-19, NO treatment protocols were suggested during home quarantine that might reduce the overall impact of COVID-19 were the person to actually get sick. 

But now, there is a COVID DRUG that supposedly is very effective and can be given during Home Quarantine. 

It seems as if the CDC is fine with drug remedies, even if it takes 18 months to come up with one.

Suddenly, it is a big deal among the medical community that there was no treatment protocol available during Home Quarantine because now there is a DRUG you can take to allegedly reduce the effects of COVID-19.

We don't have healthcare in the United States, we have Drug Care. Everyone blamed Donald Trump for 600,000 COVID deaths when for that entire time no Home Quarantine Protocols were in effect, but now there are.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Texas Abortion law fraught with inconsistencies.

The 2021 Texas Abortion Law did not go far enough. Since a man's sperm is required to create a circumstantial situation where an Abortion may be desired, all men who are the direct cause of an Abortion or the desire to get an abortion should be DNA identified and logged into a database of men who create unwanted pregnancies.

Additionally, all men who produce fertile sperm should be required to take an in person class educating them that there is no such thing as free sex with a woman who is fertile.

If the purpose of the Texas Abortion law is to stigmatize Abortion, and therefore penalize those who have abortions, then the men who created the situation for the Abortion should be equally identified  DNA databased and financially penalized so woman can review who to watch out for in the future.

If the Man wanted the pregnancy to come to term, and duly states so, they would go into a different DNA data base, one that states Father is willing to accept financial responsibility for Unwanted Pregnancy. 

And to ensure the Father is not just taking the easy way out, the Father would be required to pay monthly child care payments even if the child is aborted, the 18 year's worth of proceeds assisting orphans and single family homes instead.

If you are a guy and you think the above is outrageous, probably at least some women out there would say to you is....F.U., literally.

Men should either Man up and stay out of the issue of abortion, or, for those Men who choose to have a voice against Abortion, take financial responsibility for wanting their voice heard for all unwanted pregnancies regardless of whether or not the fetus is aborted.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Texas 2021 Abortion Laws point to a larger issue not being discussed.

The 2021 Abortion laws in Texas point to a larger issue. Americans are over taxed and Democrats use the over taxation to curry favor with the Undocumented. Democrat policies overtax Americans so Democrat Politicians can provide Instant Entitlements to the Undocumented and win their eventual vote when they become U.S. Citizens. 

Interesting California statistic to consider...at age 21, only 17% of Californians are Republican, by age 55, the number of Californians who consider themselves Republican shoots up to 55%, more than a 200% increase!

In Texas, without a border wall, the streaming in of hundreds of thousands of Undocumented on a yearly basis places a tax burden on the State and other States as well. Undocumented pre-natal or post natal healthcare can be of an astounding amount. In California, 10 to 15 Seniors could remain in their home for a full year, with a full time live-in Caregiver, for the price of ONE Undocumented Premature birth.

How about a compromise, build the border wall to reduce Undocumented Migration, and Texas can ease its anti abortion laws knowing that more taxpayer revenue is available for tax paying Americans. Until this happens, Americans are actually having less babies because they are over taxed, and part of that tax money is going to pay for the babies of the Undocumented.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Why can't 3 million homeowners who are in mortgage forbearance pay with Home Equity?

We don't think of our alleged heroes as being self important narcissists, but such a case can be made for the FED and our Medical community. 

When it comes to COVID-19, the lack of hundreds or even thousands of clinical trials devoted to any and all methods of reducing the risk of death or serious health issues from COVID-19 does not seem to be a priority to our vaccine centric Medical Heroes. Home Quarantine could prove to be an incredible opportunity to do all sorts of Clinical trials to see if there are any early treatment protocols that can fend off a weeks later dangerous outcome.

When it comes to Mortgage forbearance, the Fed is dishing out money at zero percent to banks who in turn are offering very low interest rates to those who "qualify". Meanwhile Jane and Joe Homeowner are in arrears on homes they have accrued home equity in at an equivalent to double, triple, or even higher ratios than the amount of forbearance they owe. Why can't a forbearance homeowner have the option of trading off of their increase home equity to square off their COVID-19 related forbearance?

There are homeowners with half a million dollars of home equity that the FED won't tap into so the homeowner could be paid a modest interest rate of say 4%, and in turn that equity could be re distributed to other homeowners at 5% or 6% who didn't qualify for a super low interest rate. Why can't a homeowner with plenty of home equity create home equity loan opportunities through their local bank to those who do not qualify for a conventional home equity loan?

Most don't realize that a private loan of $100,000 at 9.9% can cost 10 to 12 times more in interest rate charges than if that person could have tapped into a Home Equity line of credit at 4% because the private loan is charging interest on the full amount of the loan from day one, whereas the Home Equity line of credit only charges interest on the amount being used. 

Example: A $100,000 private loan at 9.9% costs 825 dollars per month in interest only. However, a $100,000 Home Equity line of credit at 4% in which the homeowner would like to tap $3,000 dollars per month would cost 10 dollars in interest rate charges the first month, 20 dollars the second month, 30 dollars the third month and so on, it would take approximately 12 months until the same amount of interest was charged on the Home Equity line of credit as was being charged in just the first month on the private loan. But even after 12 months, the actual interest charge is still only around 120 dollars per month as compared to the 825 dollars per month on the private loan. So after one year, the interest rate difference is still more than six times. 

Just as importantly, the higher interest rate charges from the get go mean the total amount of the loan that is actually available to the loanee is going to be considerably less, as much as 30,000 dollars less after two years when loan costs are added in!

While there is definite risk to having homeowners live off of their own home equity line of credit, there are many benefits to homeowners who are looking and planning for their future and don't want to be forced into a knee-jerk decision all at once, which is what could happen to 3 million homeowners in the late months of 2021. For those who would argue that the homeowner had plenty of time to plan for what to do during the forbearance period, that is not a fair assessment. One cannot easily plan a future when the present is in turmoil.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Why I am offering an 8% Annual Interest Rate that is both insured and backed up by a future Reverse Mortgage.

In as few words as possible, I can save $40,000 if I wait 2 years and 2 months to do a reverse mortgage versus doing one right now. I would like to share that $40,000 dollars savings with a few investors by offering a generous 8% annual return with a quarterly dividend. If an investor of mine were to find another 8% offer out there (probably won't), one could take their quarterly dividend and reinvest and increase their annual return to around 8.4%.

I can happily discuss how this once in a lifetime situation has arisen, but let's do it by phone so I can keep this article brief. On the phone you can interrupt or ask me to repeat something to fully understand. It is not complicated. If you want a paper trail, we can email back and forth. I have nothing to hide and abundance to share.

 I am offering an annual 8% return, a quarterly dividend, and the original investment amount GUARANTEED to be paid back by Oct.  05, 2023.

Meanwhile, Banks are paying 0.6% for their savings accounts, a somewhat questionable way of motivating their customers to invest in their Stock Market offerings from their bank locations THAT ARE NOT GUARANTEED and have RISK (read the fine print in case you thought otherwise).

But back to me. I have capped the total investment opportunity at $150,000 to ensure an excellent LTV so that your investment is guaranteed to be returned by Oct. 05, 2023. If you call and I don't answer, you will hear a cheerfully demented message from me proving my trustworthiness. Ok, it won't do that but it will alert me that you have called. I do not have caller Id so if you do not leave a number, we will both be forlorn and sad.

sincerely,  Alessandro Machi

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Why Daily PUMA supports a sugary drink tax.

Years ago I made a food tasting discovery that surprised me involving extreme sugary drinks.

If I purchased a soft drink that had reduced sugar (NOT Zero sugar BS, but reduced sugar) in it with a slice of Pizza that had too much salt in it, I couldn't taste the soft drink's less sugar flavor, not because it had less sugar, but because the Pizza Slice had too much salt in it.

And there in lies the reason why a Sugary Tax drink is a good idea. Surgary drinks force other vendors to amp up the ingredient that they use to make their product "tastier" to the tongue. Most of the time this would be salt or seasonings.

Too much salt requires another product consumed at the same time have too much sugar, and too much sugar can require another product being consumed at the same time have too much seasoning, and so on.

No one wants to take the first step if they are competing with other products that cheat.

In an unsalted nutshell, too much sugar in a drink is CHEATING as it requires other vendors to add excessive seasoning to "blend in". It's really that simple.

I did a grape juice test once. Grape Juice has a LOT of sugar per 8 ounces, one of the highest of any fruit juice and it may even be higher than most soft drinks and beer. I tried diluting Grape Juice and discovered 33% to 40% grape juice mixed with 67% to 60% water tasted fine. I APPRECIATE getting a more sweetly condensed Grape Juice Bottle because it is like getting an extra bottle and a half for free when it is mixed with water at the percentages mentioned above.

However, when products are sold with the higher sugar percentages and then consumed that way, it most likely leads to combining  unhealthy levels of other foods and the seasoning's they use, therefore should be taxed.

If Grape Juice manufacturers had a clue, they would market their product the way toilet paper companies market their products in which they claim one roll is like 3 regular rolls.

One container of Grape Juice is like getting another 1 and half bottles for free, and it is better for the environment than transporting liquids that don't require dilution.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How anti vaxxers are being set up to be ruined at any time in the future.

A scene from your future if you decide not to get the COVID-19 vaccine shot???     

A person has been sued, accused of either giving someone else COVID-19 through a contact tracing mafia, or, are simply being discredited as a trustworthy witness because they have not worn a mask in a restaurant, and lied about it. The Defendant has been called to the stand by the prosecution.

"Isn't it true you have openly lied in a public setting, putting dozens of others in danger?"

"No".

"Isn't this an image of you going into an Italian Restaurant without a mask?"

"Yes".

"Were you asked if you had been vaccinated?" (a rhetorical question since a restaurant can be shut down if they don't ask).

"Yes".

"And what did you say?"

"I said I had been vaccinated".

"Which was a lie?"

"I was hungry".  (court room erupts in laughter, including the jury).

(Judge pounds gavel). 

Order in the court!

"Infecting others who could then die, because you lied, is that funny to you?"

"No".

"So you lied about being vaccinated, endangering everyone in the restaurant, just so you could eat?"

"Yes".

The Jury grimaces in unison.

End of scene.

That's going to look pretty bad, but this could be in your future if you have not been vaccinated and don't wear a mask in ANY indoor setting, whether or not you were asked if you were vaccinated.

As time goes on this could change if enough people develop health problems from being vaxxed, however even that can be spun by the mainstream media into "they would have been worse off without the vax, so they are still ahead".

What makes the "did you get the vaccine shot" question even more ghastly is people who got sick from COVID-19, or were infected and fought if off, cannot get their own COVID-19 card that states, "have been sick from COVID-19, have recovered and now have COVID-19 antibodies as a result."

DailyPUMA suggests people who did not get vaxxed but have tested positive for the COVID-19 antibodies DEMAND their own type of COVID-19 verification / immunity card that states they have COVID-19 antibodies. 

Or, Are we to believe a vaccine creates superior antibodies than the human body naturally creates when the body successfully fights off COVID-19 without any additional assistance from a vaccine?

Lets say the person who is on the witness stand is not being sued by someone who allegedly got COVID-19 from them. Let's say the person is a character witness. The same evidence is shown, the person has to admit they were lying, and the suddenly their character is called into question because they lied so flippantly over whether or not they had received the vaccine "just because they were hungry."

If a person lies about getting the vaccine and they are to appear in court to give testimony the opposing attorney can assassinate their character by proving the person has lied in the past because they were hungry. 

Consider the five following scenarios:

1. Those who have not gotten sick and have no antibodies, 
2. Those who have not gotten sick but have the antibodies and are considered     asymptomatic, 
3. Those who have gotten sick, recovered, and have antibodies, 
4. Those have gotten the vaccine, 
5. Those who gotten the vaccine and also have natural anti-bodies prior to getting the vaccine.

There probably are a couple more scenarios I have not presented here, but the point is it appears that only vaccine related scenarios will have legal immunity, that is disconcerting and may become an unfair and inaccurate litmus for deciding if a person is a liar or not.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Is Kamala Harris a closet Republican making a desperate plea through her Guatemala Trip to change parties?

It is difficult to isolate the most satisfying moment of Kamala Harris's recent trip to Guatemala to discuss the massive exodus of people to the U.S. since Joe Biden became President a few months earlier.                   

Was Harris's most satisfying moment when she channeled Donald Trump and told Guatemala "do NOT leave your country, I forbid it". 

Or, was it Harris refusing to go to the border so she could be ambushed by hundreds of News Photographers who could then retire reselling their photos of Harris at the Border to salivating Conservative news sites, not to mention Biden supporting news sites, heck, even Anarchists wanting to burn it all down sites would love to have Harris posing with Children in cages at the border. 

Perhaps even Progressive sites using the Border photos with Harris and friends could hold power over Harris's political future. Imagine a child holding the children's book Harris wrote asking her to  autograph it to further propagate the false story about Harris having the government purchase her book to give out as part of gift bags to Undocumented Children at the border.

Or, was it Harris giving herself a high grade, just as Donald Trump would have done if he had made the same trek to Guatemala and said the same things as Harris said.

If ever there was a Politician needing to switch sides, it is Kamala Harris. Harris is a former Prosecuting Attorney, how can this not be obvious to everyone that the Republican Party needs to lure and rescue Harris away from the Democrat Party so we can watch the Dem Party implode, and rather quickly.

Trump / Harris, 2024, here we come!

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The obvious solution to the Jon Rahm Premature Disqualification.

The media is sometimes too quick to report what has happened, and to slow to report on the solution. The Media has become Wash, Rinse, Repeat, with no Agitation.

The PGA should allow Jon Rahm to play, Sunday, June 06, 2021 AFTER all other Players and Fans have gone through first. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Republican Politicians need to up their game and offer FREE Voter Photo ID Locations to all U.S. Minority Citizens.

The ridiculousness of accusing the Republican Party of racist voting laws because of photo ID requirements needs to be buried in one fell swoop by offering FREE photo ID Voter Registration to all minorities who are in the U.S. legally.

The issue of granting former felons voting rights needs to be addressed as well. I would suggest a free in four solution. Any felon who is released from jail and goes four years without a new infraction can vote.

The United States is mired in too many repetitive arguments and it is a surefire recipe for something very big and very bad to happen that could have been prevented if not for the political in fighting over the same darn issues, over and over and over again.

Free Voter Photo ID Centers would also give both parties and independent parties equal and fair access to all who are registering to vote, what could be fairer than that?

I'd separate the DMV from the Free Voter Photo ID Centers because both processes in the same place would ultimately turn into a very long wait. Lets spend money on Americans for American issues.

Free Photo Id is the kind of program that needs priority over the funding of the Undocumented who require anywhere from 10 to 77 times more funding to do the same thing that U.S. Citizens need and are not getting. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Alessandro Machi: Diversity Madness has taken over without consulting those over 50 years of Age.

Is the Mainstream Media guilty of Presumptive Treason regarding the 2020 Presidential Election?

There were several chain reactions that were sparked by two huge events in 2020, COVID-19 and George Floyd. Both were politicized by the media against Donald Trump. However Trump felt about either issue, the Media went oppo. 

The media was able to make People think Trump was a buffoon for asking at a Press Conference what could be done to fight Coronavirus early on, before it had a chance to manifest and become lethal inside of a person.

To this day, Fauci, the Medical community nor the media has encouraged people who are already in Home Quarantine to be involved in various types of home based COVID-19 trials involving natural products and remedies to see if they might kill off COVID-19 before it has spread throughout the body. This to me is a red flag of either a medical conspiracy or a hate of Donald Trump and his dangerous practice of asking questions at Press Conferences. The media has so brainwashed people they think Trump committed a crime because he asked a question about how COVID-19 could be stopped in its early, home quarantine stage.

Then, George Floyd happened and every incident that involved a Police shooting after George Floyd was immediately categorized as a reason to defund the Police. I understand that without the continued protesting it is possible things would have returned to Police Officers virtually never being under the microscope and never having a Grand Jury agree on charges being filed, but the result was an extraordinary media bias that as time goes on will reveal that most of the split second decisions were not Police Brutality.

The ongoing Summer protests and COVID-19 created the panic needed to do a never been done before “sending virtually everyone in the country a mail in ballot” decision while acting like it was no big thing, normal as normal can be.

The Media finished off Donald Trump by always using certain mocking phrases like “widespread ballot fraud” before the election when we all know highly targeted ballot fraud encompassing sanctuary cities would be enough to turn the election if necessary, and then universally using the words “baseless” and “false” in front of any Donald Trump comment about the 2020 election after the election. The fact that the two words were so universally used clearly shows behind the scenes meetings occurred among ALL mainstream media. I think the media is already guilty of an insurrection for deciding before election day they would not investigate signs of ballot harvesting or ballot fraud. And by constantly deriding any mention of ballot fraud or ballot harvesting and constantly using the word baseless and false when discussing the possibility of the 2020 election being compromised, have actually presumptively committed treason if ballot fraud is found in the future regarding 2020 Presidential election.

Yes, regardless of the outcome of the latest ballot recounts, the media committed presumptive treason by refusing to investigate various types of potential ballot fraud.

The latest indication that 2020 may have been stolen is the incessant nit picking and gaslighting about the Maricopa recount that has gotten so desperate among the mainstream media they mock the putting of the ballots up to the light. Seriously? Why does the media care so much if ballot counters are putting the ballots up to the light? I feel like I tumbled into a Star Trek or Twilight Zone episode where a 6 year old is actually in charge and is getting nervous over a secret of theirs being exposed and begins to freak out as his secret becomes undone as ballots are held to the light. “You stop that right now or I’ll turn you into a rock”.

Detective shows always mention how people will look away when someone is trying to find a piece of evidence that is hidden in the room is near the hot spot where they have hidden something, then the person will calm down when the investigator moves away from the hot spot. That is how it feels with all the attention being given to Maricopa county by the mainstream media and the holding up of the ballot to a light.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Media falsely pushes there was no 2020 Election Controversy and hides that it costs 77 times more to Foster an Undocumented Child than a U.S. Citizen Foster Child.

The Mainstream Media claims there were no controversies about the 2020 election and that it is ok to deprive 1.5 million Foster kids from having their Grandparent's Foster them at 10 dollars a day. 

Instead of providing 10 dollars a day to Foster 1.5 million U.S. Children with their Grandparents,  20,000 Undocumented are being Fostered at 770 dollars a day.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

1.5 million American Kids could be Fostered with their Grandparents for what it costs to fund 20,000 Undocumented Kids.

You can do the the math yourself if you like.  

It costs 770 dollars per day to safely house an Undocumented child. In Ohio, Ma'Khia Bryant was driven insane by a system that would not pay her grammy 10 bucks a day to be her Foster Parent when Mom, who is single, could not hold down a full time job and also be there for her kids full time. Ironically, Single Mom, if she was working regularly, was paying into the system that could have then backed her up by letting Grammy be there for her kids if necessary.

Crazier still, Grammy has to wait 6 months and then maybe she gets paid 10 bucks a day to be a caregiver for each grand child. But how can Grammy provide for her grand kids for those first six months if she isn't being paid and has to work during those first six months and once again, not be around for her grand kids. 

The U.S. system presently is funding 20,000 Undocumented Kids an amount of money that could fund 1.5 million Foster Kids in the U.S. to live with their grandparent or grandparent.

This is the kind of statistical factoid that goes untold by Democrat Politicians who are against the Wall, while Republican Politicians don't seem to know enough about family values to want to make sure that Grandma can be a Foster Parent with minimal red tape.

Instead the two Political sides bicker and fight when the math is there for everyone to see.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Does Black Lives Matter know Democrat Politicians are Spending 77 times more per Undocumented Child than is being spent on African American Foster Children who are U.S. Citizens?

It costs 770 dollars per day to take care of one Undocumented Child at the border. One can presume the new cost to house many undocumented children in large facilities like convention centers or smaller more localized centers within California, is most likely similar, or more.    

Ma'khia Bryant died in large part because Ohio could not afford to pay her grandma 10 dollars a day to be her full time foster mother. Yet the Democrat led Federal Government is paying 770 dollars a day for daily caregiver services and facilities for each Undocumented Child. 

Even more astounding, Democrat Politicians WILL PAY a Foster parent who is NOT related to African American 10 dollars a day or more to take care of an African American child, just not the child's grandparent. This is how Democrat Politicians keep African American families together, by paying a stranger to separate African American Kids from their own grandparents by not paying the Grandparent? This is the party that Black Lives Matter is supporting?

Is Black Lives Matter aware of the discrepancy? Does BLM approve of the Democrat led Federal Government paying 77 times more per day to take care of an undocumented child versus making an African American Grandmother wait six months before paying her just 10 dollars a day to Foster her own Grandchildren?

Why is BLM upset with Republican Politicians when it sure seems like it is Democrat Politicians who value Undocumented Lives more than Black Lives, 77 times more.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Police could reduce shooting deaths of suspects who try to get back in their car, by getting into the car first.

Suspects who feel fear and try to flee the scene of a Police stop may, or may not be a threat to the police or the public at large. No one knows the true intent of the fleeing suspect. The problem for Police is they cannot just let someone flee the scene just because the suspect is afraid.  

If a fleeing suspect gets in their car and races away and crashes into another car, a pedestrian, or a building, the Police can be sued by whomever the suspect victimized since the victims can sue that they were needlessly injured, or worse.

It may be time for Police policy to change. Upon a suspect exiting from their own vehicle one of the Police Officers should immediately sit in the driver's seat of the car and observe the encounter from that vantage point. This does several positive things all at the same time.  

• the suspect accepts they can no longer use their car to "getaway".
• the suspect also realizes that once the Police Officer vacates the car, they are free to leave and cannot be fired upon.
• the suspect's willingness to leave their car for the encounter can be cited in a favorable way should a court appearance to required.

A suspect who feels an overwhelming sense of fear may instinctually gravitate back to their own car. If a Police Officer is in the driver's seat observing the suspect approaching, the suspect will see they are surrounded on more than one side and will most likely not try and occupy a space that is already occupied. If the suspect does try, then they are assaulting a Police Officer rather than attempting to get away, and a shooting at that point is much more justified, yet probably less likely.

If there are others in the car an assessment has to be made before the Police Officer places themselves inside the car such. Back-up would need to called before the Police Office enters the suspect's car.

If Fleeing the Scene is going to be meant with deadly fire, then the Police must provide an intermediate step that more likely prevents the suspect from attempting to get back in their car. 

The Police occupying the driver's seat is clearly an option that needs to be considered and most likely implemented sooner rather than later since the alternative is leading to riots and massive destruction of property of those who have done nothing wrong.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How the Rich and Famous force their hand and make a Blogger's Post disappear from Google Search in the age of Cancel Culture.

Not only did the linked column's hits flatline to zero, hits to Daily PUMA have now dropped by 75% overall.

To fully understand the reason why I wrote this satirical article about Arianna Huffington over 12 years ago,  here is the message I left yesterday in the comments section from the above link.

Somebody from on high did something to this article. First, it used to get a lot of hits, which I never understood how that happened. Then suddenly around April 1 of 2021, this article gets zero hits AND DailyPUMA's total hits have dropped precipitously by over 80%,

Lack of full disclosure when these types of technocracy shenanigans go on is a big threat to society. I originally wrote this article because Huffington Post MERCILESSLY backed Barack Obama and made Hillary Clinton look like the Devi on a DAILY BASIS during the 2008 Democrat Nomination race. 

And yet, after Obama was selected over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat Nomination and then was elected President, this same Huffington Post labeled Barack Obama a BANKCENTRIC PRESIDENT, which was the EXACT REASON why I wanted Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama back in 2008. 

In 2008 Hillary Clinton was still a Moderate with Conservative budget concerns, the PERFECT BLEND to run the country. Since then, Hillary Clinton has been driven so far left she is no longer the Political Candidate who I used to admire greatly.

Huffington Post played a trigger role in Hillary Clinton losing the 2008 Democrat Nomination, and that is why I wrote this scathing but satirical article about Ms. Huffington. By the way, our own family suffered because of Obama and his Bank Centric policies. While it can be argued that Obama's Bank Centric policies helped stabilized over aggressive house flippers, it also ended up resulting in unknown quantities, perhaps in the millions, of homes WITH EQUITY STILL IN THEM, ending up in the hands of the ultra rich who gobbled up that equity while putting the foreclosed upon victim in perpetual, zombie debt and that is why I wrote this article.

Other than that, I have met Arianna Huffington and I liked her.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

2004 TV show "Strong Medicine", episode "Quarantine", discusses the Dangers of Coronavirus.

If the Coronavirus has been around for decades, why was COVID-19 represented as some type of new virus when the world was first shut down?

In a 2004 episode of Strong Medicine, called "Quarantine", there is a scene where the Coronavirus is succinctly explained and that it is dangerous. So why did it take another 16 years before serious work on a Coronavirus vaccine was completed?

The 2004 scene from Strong Medicine where Coronavirus is explained is CHILLING for anyone watching the scene who is unfamiliar with, or never saw the show before, because they would just assume that the episode was recently made.

And if it "just took that long" to develop a Coronavirus Vaccine, why didn't the Medical Community do ongoing clinical trials to see what could be given, even if it was a natural remedy, to reduce the overall impact of Coronavirus when the symptoms were caught early enough?

Update June 13, 2021:  Sometime in early May of 2021,  Strong Medicine was REMOVED from the StartTV line-up, about 4 to 5 weeks after this article was written? Coincidence?  Who knows.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Can Shark Tank Raise money for Charity by auctioning off their Shark Tank scribbles?

I was watching a Lori Grenier Instagram Post and it dawned on me that the scribble notes the Sharks write during their Tank investment interviews might be worth something to respectful fans of the show.

If the Sharks and the Shark Tank show are amenable to the idea, why not auction off the various Shark's scribbles / notes that they write during their Tank investment Interviews and donate the proceeds to charity?

How much is that investment scribble worth to a Shark Fan for charity?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Has Citi Credit Card bait and switched millions of their credit card customers during the COVID-19 Pandemic?

(Update: Friday, March 19, 2021 2:15 am). I thought I had a good talk with the Citi Executive representative who called me, but when their PDF arrived it basically stated nothing would change and Citi is doing nothing wrong, so I have doubled down on my belief that Citi is wrongly posting to the credit bureaus the total amount owed by waiting until a new bill is generated which automatically amplifies the customer's borrowing amount by several hundreds of dollars. Once a new bill is posted a customer has 20 days to pay down the amount owed and what should be being reported to the credit bureaus is the amount owed just prior to a new bill being generated, NOT the amount owed as soon as the new bill is generated. And, the additional overage charges when a new bill is generated are illegal in my opinion since they are not allowing the customer to pay down their debt even though the customer has 20 days to do so and was actually under the credit limit just prior to a new bill being generated. (End of Friday, March 19, 2021 2:15 am update).

(Update: Wednesday, May 17, 2021, 2:42 am) I filed a complaint with the CFPB and yesterday I received a call from Citi's Executive Office. I agreed to recuse my claim of a "pre-ordained conspiracy in which Citi overcharges on their monthly minimum payment which leads to a chain reaction in which the customer calls in to ask why their monthly bill is radically higher than normal...and without asking the customer who called in is then offered a lower interest rate for 6 months which in turn triggers a reduce customer's credit line "trap" the next the time the customer makes a large payment" if.... the executive assistant would forward my request to the powers that be that Citi customers be given their "real" credit limit (which is actually approximately 1.5% lower than the written credit limit) so the customer knows approximately how far below the actual credit limit they need to be so they don't suddenly incur an inflated monthly minimum bill even when they were actually below the credit limit just prior to their new credit card bill being generated.  (End of Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:42 am update).

I had called Citi customer service asking why my monthly credit card bill which is normally a certain amount, was suddenly 160 dollars higher.   

The customer service rep seemed to instantly know, as if many customers were experiencing the same situation. Without my even asking, the customer service rep offered me a six month, 7.99% percent interest rate. I was shocked, I was humbled. I felt like I was in a Honda Commercial where they perform a Random act of Kindness. Silly, foolish, Alessandro Machi. This is a credit card company, any kind hearted move has to have an ulterior motive.

"But it's the pandemic, it must have softened the hearts of the Credit Card companies, that has to be it".  Gasp. Silly, foolish, Alessandro Machi. Are you really trying to see the good when it comes to a credit card company?  Really?

I had called simply asking why I was being charged an extra 160 dollars for my monthly Citi Credit Card bill and instead of giving me an answer, my interest rate was lowered to 7.99% for six months, which could save me several hundred dollars in lower interest rate charges. How could I be so fortunate?

When a short time later I had the chance to do a zero percent balance transfer offer from a different credit card, I chose to pay down my Citi credit card because having some elbow room on the card would be of benefit to me.

The moment the balance transfer went through, Citi gobbled it all up by lowering my credit line an almost equivalent amount to the balance transfer. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing since a lower credit limit means I have lower monthly payments and less going towards interest rate charges. However, in this particular instance it would mean I would now lose some of the 7.99 low interest savings I had just been awarded for six months, by at least one hundred dollars, maybe more.

However, specifically because of the pandemic I needed my credit limit and the gap I had just created through a balance transfer from another card. I needed the credit line max to remain as is. Once the 6 month, 7.99% offer had expired, if Citi wanted to lower my credit line that would be totally fine by me.

So as I retrace my steps what basically happened was this...

I called before my credit card due date to see if I needed to make any payments to ensure I was below my credit limit. I followed the automated information I was given over the phone and made two small payments to put me below my credit line limit. However, my next credit card bill triggered that I was over my limit even though I had made the payments necessary to get below the credit limit and had made them before the due date and they were credited before the due date. Instead of being hit with the standard 1% of what is owed, plus interest, I was hit with 2% of what was owed, plus interest AND my account was flagged as making insufficient payments even though I made the payments as suggested when I called in to check if I was below the credit line limit. Afterwards, when I called in to ask why my bill was 160 dollars higher than normal my call triggered an offer by the Citi rep to lower my interest rate for six months to 7.99%, which in turn triggered an AUTOMATIC lowering of my credit line the moment I made a large enough payment to do so.

I have no problem with Citi wanting to lower their credit line, I do have a problem with Citi giving out false information as to how much one should pay to avoid inflated payment due amounts that  also create a red flag scenario of insufficient payments being made that was caused by incorrect info Citi is giving their customers.  

Citi, it's this easy, when customers call in to check their credit card balance to make sure they are under their credit limit, use the following recording when giving out credit limit information, "To avoid a higher monthly payment due amount, please pay down your account by the amount of ____________ before your due date", and then actually give the CORRECT AMOUNT needed to ensure the credit card balance remains below the credit limit even when the new bill is assessed.

What Citi basically did was give inaccurate credit balance info so that a higher payment due amount would be triggered, which is then used to DOWNGRADE a customer's payment history and assess the customer as a risk, even if the customer has NEVER been late with a payment.

If Citi used bait and switch strategies against their own customers during the COVID-19 pandemic, something should be done about it by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Australia Media Freeze by Facebook exposes the selfishness of both Mark Zuckerberg and Rupert Murdoch.

It seems as if behemoth companies like Rupert Murdoch's Media Empire and Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook Empire are thriving by depriving the every day mere mortal.

Zuckerberg employs minimal real time customer assistance other than sometimes access to chat. Meanwhile Murdoch refuses to prop up broadcast television news with a conservative slanted evening and nightly news show. Nor is there a late night conservative talk show that could dovetail off of the evening and nightly news conservative talk show.

Australia is turning out to be the petrie dish by which we can judge how out of touch both Facebook and Murdoch's Media empire have become with the viewers of their product. While both Murdoch and Zuckerberg probably did the right thing from their own perspectives, their inability to see they are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater is somewhat alarming.

If Facebook employed a cadre of people running into the several thousand whose job it was to actually talk to the public, the present situation would either have been avoided, or at the very least, there would have been Facebook employees already up to speed who could have literally one by one determined which sites from Australia could do what and with whom and be manually notated so the proper Facebook department could implement a new rewiring of what is allowed and what is not allowed.

Not to be outdone, Murdoch's insistence regarding new legislation that forces Facebook to pay a fee for news links that appear on Facebook should have also come with a mandate that Murdoch creates a free tv broadcast TV conservative evening, nightly news and conservative late night talk show program. In the United States, people have become so polarized over Donald Trump not because of Trump, but because of a one sided nightly news that portrayed anything that Trump did in a bad light.

Of course, Murdoch has no obligation to do something that might prove positive. Thus Murdoch becomes another Zuckerberg (Zuckerberg could be providing thousands more jobs making Facebook more interactive with the public but instead makes machiavellian decisions on the spur of the moment and more profits as a result) by eating the top of the muffin (his non broadcast, non free tv, cable empire), while discarding the muffin stumps (the hard work; a nightly, free tv conservative evening and nightly broadcast news show and late night conservative talk show).

We are in a time and a space where triangulation is needed to solve problems in which the third side is an outsider who is thinking about the bigger picture rather than choosing sides.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.