Why is Lady Gaga's Meat Dress considered hip, but Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse draws a lot of flank?

Click here to see original photo source and article.

Click here to see original photo source and article.

When I wrote about Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse in November of 2008, I pointed out that raising awareness of how Turkeys are slaughtered for our Thanksgiving enjoyment is not something Sarah Palin should get flack over.

"But, but, she didn't know what was going on in the background" clamored the liberal and progressive community. The truth is, Sarah Palin did not care what was in the background. In my opinion the reason Palin did not care about what was in the background was because we eat Turkeys, and this is how they are prepped. And yet, people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC just ridiculed her to no end over the Turkey interview video.

Amazing the flack that Sarah Palin also took over the budget for her wardrobe during the 2008 presidential race. Maybe Lady Gaga's meat dress was "affordable".

So, what about Lady Gaga? Can someone explain why Lady Gaga gets a free pass from the MTV awards and the liberal media for wearing raw meat all over her body and then accepting an award dressed that way while Sarah Palin is vilified for doing an interview in front of a Turkey farm / slaughterhouse?

The two acts are inseparable, and yet, does the liberal media treat them in an equal light?

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Its time for OBOT Friday. Meet the Hillary Clinton Polka Geek Dude syndicated columnist.

This is what I'm talking about. Men attempt to gain the acceptance of other men by bashing women. I almost feel like I've walked into a Criminal Minds episode and this is the lair where the serial killer does his polka dance of death ritual in front of his kidnap victims. Click here to see this youtube "masterpiece".

If you choose to watch this video, notice how the "audience" never moves, applauds, or does anything affirmative. Even the girl whom he grabs and then dances with never has her face visible to the camera. Could this guy actually be holding these people hostage and using them in his youtube videos? I thought I detected a sigh of relief from the girl when the "dancing perp" lets her sit back down.

Remember the Twilight Zone episode where the kid had all the power and the adults were catering to his every whim and faking being interested? Except in this instance the kid is the adult and the audience his caged prey.

Ironically, this Hillary Polka video points out a very sinister aspect that Hillary Clinton had to deal with from the media before she declared her candidacy. I believe that Hillary Clinton did not want to enter the race first and as the leader for fear of being overexposed too early in the presidential race. (I think this video came out in 2007 and the guy is already not wanting to see anymore of Hillary). It was the media, led by Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, that constantly harped on her to announce her candidacy as early as possible.

How many times in past elections has the initial "leading" democratic candidate actually become the nominee? I seem to recall that democrats who are trailing and then gain momentum as the race develops have more success than those that are just presented as the initial, inevitable nominee. So the media knew what it was doing by trying to overexpose Hillary Clinton early on, and this "gentleman" with the faceless guests seems to confirm the media conspiracy of early overexposure being used against Hillary Clinton, quite effectively.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Nice Remembrance of Basement Angel from SICKOFITRADLZ.

Before I started Daily PUMA after the November 2008 presidential election, I was originally a member of the Hillary Clinton Forum after having just stumbled into the whole 2008 democratic nomination scam by accident, literally.

A foot injury caused me to be couch bound for about 7 -10 straight days in early February of 2008. During that week to 10 days I watched a whole lot of MSNBC and their bizarre coverage of the 2008 democratic nomination race.

After what can only be described as waterboard torture administered by Keith Olbermann over the airwaves as I recuperated from my foot injury on my couch, I went from being a completely ambivalent democrat over whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won, to an angry, angry democrat completely freaked out over the media's completely biased coverage of the 2008 democratic race, coverage that favored Barack Obama.

As time marched forward I began researching the extent of the 2008 democratic caucus fraud, media misdeeds and the profound level of relationship betrayals that it took to finally get Barack Obama over the top. At some point in May of 2008 I came up with the idea to make protest postcards that could be mailed to ALL of the 2008 democratic delegates BEFORE they arrived at the democratic convention.

Each Protest Postcard had a message that related to the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process. My belief was that one protest postcard message in the hands of a delegate might have more impact that a hundred angry emails.

To my surprise, my protest postcard idea was rebuffed by many of the most well known Hillary Clinton supporters and bloggers. I've always believed that it takes a coalition of believers with ideas that makes sense, to make a difference, but I've never been very good at the "politics" of being accepted.

I have contemplated for the past few years what would cause a true Hillary Clinton supporter to not be excited by the protest postcard idea and will address that issue in a further article.

There is a fine line between trying to profit from an idea, and using that idea to help create normalcy and fairness regarding how the media and our own politicians wage their election battles. My fine line was that the only way I could make money from the protest postcard idea was if the postcards actually helped get Hillary Clinton the nomination.

In other words, if 15,000 to 30,000 of these postcards actually got printed and mailed to the few thousand delegates, enough delegates could have been turned to give Hillary Clinton the nomination. Postcard runs of that size would have to make a miniscule amount of profit from each postcard, otherwise I would run the risk of significantly going into the red. If however, only a couple thousand were sent out, I would lose money. So if Hillary wins, I win, if Hillary loses, I lose. Works for me.

I compromised on my original run of protest postcards. I did a thousand each for each postcard, plus a second run of one of the postcards.

lol, I lost money on the protest postcard venture but I felt I handled the procedure the correct way. I would much rather pay to create the postcards with my own money up front, than announce I was making the cards ahead of time to see if I could get enough pre-orders to not risk my own money at all. While getting pre-orders may be good business sense, it flies in the face of supporting a candidate because you believe they will do the best job of anybody running.

Plus, where was the risk if one offers pre-sales? If the protest postcard pre-sale idea is golden, the person with the idea comes off like a true Hillary Clinton supporter without ever having risked their own money. I'm glad I risked my own money, because my conscience is pure, I had a great idea, but not enough places to go to get enough people to back it.

Of all the protest postcard rejections that I received, the most hurtful one was from Lambert Strether at Correntewire (I assume not his real name as that is the name of a literary character). I had just been approved for "membership" at correntewire but because I mentioned my protest postcards more than once, Lambert immediately banned me without any type of additional questioning.

I could not comprehend how people allegedly backing Hillary Clinton would not bend over backwards to help any idea that might help get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008. So from that point on, I just presumed that Correntewire was a faux pro Hillary Clinton site. After I started Daily PUMA later that year, any alleged Hillary Clinton pro site that would post a link to Correntewire, but not Daily PUMA, had some explaining to do, and that's putting it politely. See for yourself, if you see an alleged pro Hillary Clinton site with a link to correntwire, but no link to Daily PUMA, be aware.

All of this is background to what follows next.

Today I came across this remembrance of Basement Angel by SICKOFITRADLZ. Please read this remembrance as it is a nice tribute to Basement Angel.

SICKOFITRADLZ'S tribute helped tie up some loose ends for me as well. Apparently Basement Angel was the one poster at Correntwire who could be counted on to rebuff the anti Hillary nonsense that was posted there as part of the Barack Obama trollingbrigade that went around either CONCERN TROLLING, (AND STILL DOING IT!) or attacking Hillary Clinton without identifying themselves as a Barack Obama supporter.

ONE POSTER?

That's it? Only one poster (Basement Angel) at correntwire could be counted on to attack any and all stupid Barack Obama shills that were against Hillary Clinton?

Amazingly enough, Lambert was apparently considered a PUMA by the buttheads at RumpRoast. And while we're at it, lets not forget the alleged Hillary Clinton supporter turned Obot, Taylor Marsh.

If anyone reading this was a friend of Basement Angel, why not go to correntwire and find her best Hillary Clinton comments, and do a tribute article about her and include those comments.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Chicago Dentist runs ad supporting Hillary Clinton for President in 2012.

As I stated in a previous article, Hillary Clinton will need a political news channel that won't go in the tank for the biggest democratic progressive spending candidate, (and well before the democratic presidential race was actually decided), which is what happened in 2008.

However, since most new prime time television programming is aimed at the under 35-40 years of age crowd, it becomes difficult to then run news programming aimed at the over 35-40 crowd. Even the late night stand up comedians cater their comedy to the younger people, and of course, part of their "comedy" includes making fun of Hillary Clinton.

There is a built in television production cycle that is funded by Wall Street and the bankster industry and their desire is to financially indenture younger people because revolving credit card debt from a 20 something is the most profitable type of debt there is.

Fox Television is the perfect model of what is needed for the Hillary Clinton voter base, but Fox is primarily a republican channel and even if Fox ran stories exposing the lying and deceit of the democratic party, it would not be reaching the right demographic base.

Another channel is needed. TV Land is catering to the over 35 crowd, but they are somewhat rudderless and clueless and would need to be "guided" into a nightly news programming show that would simply reveal what MSNBC refuses to reveal.

Click here for CNN Story. The comments section was closed very quickly as many Hillary Clinton supporters began commenting.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Where PUMA's went after the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process.

(quick update note, July 25, 2012), DailyPUMA is a bit surprised that in 2012 very few former PUMA bloggers have gone to the trouble to actually post their desire for a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2012 on their own blog! Are you Pumas aware that progressive democrats will be backing Elizabeth Warren in 2016?)


Where did all the PUMA's go after the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process? The answer is, everywhere.

And "everywhere" speaks to something that seems to have gone unanalyzed by the alleged pundits.

There were so many different types of Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008, including women, poor, working class, Bill Clinton fans, Chelsea Clinton fans, Hillary Clinton fans, Diverse ethnics, working class men, Republicans who wanted fiscal responsibility, and finally, loyal, loyal democrats.

When all of these Hillary Clinton factions were overruled by a corrupt central democratic alligiance that still remains in power, these multiple Hillary Clinton groups all went their own separate ways. Hillary Clinton supporters truly fractured to all over the political spectrum.

And therein lies the paradox.

There were so many different coalitions that were ready to rally around Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 that when Wall Street realized that Barack Obama would make a much better lap dog president than Hillary Clinton, Clinton supporters went in all different directions as they witnessed the lengths to which the democratic party went to rationalize the kinds of illegal political campaigning that went on in 2008.

While many of the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters didn't see themselves as PUMA's, they are actually all PUMA's who believed being pragmatic was the only choice they really had, (the same type of pragmatism that Hillary Clinton championed within her own political career).

Without even one cable news station that simply reports the news from a moderate middle position, there is no room for Hillary Clinton style of moderate politics in the United States. Instead, we are left with a polarizing cable news junta of Fox and MSNBC, and millions of americans being taken advantage of because there is no real honest news out there, just agenda driven news that goes either far right, or far left.

Without any cable news channels reporting moderate middle news, a Hillary Clinton style of presidency was not possible, especially when a fledgling group of millions of Hillary Clinton supporters had nowhere to go on the cable news channel dial to get truly fair and powerful news reporting with a slant towards finding solutions to existing problems.

We can all see by what happened in Wisconsin and the collective bargaining impasse that neither the ultra conservative republican branch, nor their equally demented ultra progressive whack a noodle liberal democrat counterparts care about anything other than their own voter base, and that will always separate them from Hillary Clinton supporters.

There are blogs on Daily PUMA that cover women's rights and women's continued fight against media bias, there are blogs on Daily PUMA that celebrate younger women's quest to attempt physically demanding adventures on par with their male counterparts, bloggers fighting cancer, environmentally based blogs that bring the latest news on green energy technology breakthroughs, there are also some ultra liberal blogs and ultra conservative blogs, and there are PUMA blogs,

and that is what makes DailyPUMA a special place for those who "get it".

I commend those who have discovered that Daily PUMA blog is a huge time saver when it comes to quickly analyzing news story clips of the day because there is such an interesting cross section of blogs.

Rather than simply surround ourselves with people who all think alike, PUMA's get that Hillary Clinton would have truly been an all encompassing president who would have "worked hard" to make a difference without being as polarizing as either the ultra conservative republicans or progressive liberal whack a noodle democrats have proven to be.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

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. 

Wah, Wah, Wah, Poor Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has most of the Super Delegates and it's just not Fair, wah, wah, wah.

During the February 2008 democrat race, also known as the Plains States democrat caucuses (held in republican leaning states), caucus delegates went for Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin over Hillary Clinton even though state polling done just prior to the caucuses showed Hillary Clinton either tied or leading Barack Obama. Age, weather conditions, time of the caucus events, along with younger voters happily tricking trusting older voters into leaving events prematurely or dragging them out so long that the older folks simply left helped ensure an Obama victory in the Republican leaning Plaines state caucuses.

But during the 2008 democrat race, whenever democrat voters got to walk into an actually primary with an actual voting booth and voter's could choose when to vote from  morning, afternoon and part of the early evening, Hillary Clinton actually got more votes than Barack Obama. 

What Hillary Clinton's overall winning margin in democrat primaries is hard to exactly know, I estimate the overall winning margin to be around a 51.5% to 48.5% margin in primary  contests where voters actually voted like they do on election day. In the swing states the margin was more likely a 53% to 47% in favor of Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama had a huge primary voting edge in Illinois, South Carolina, North Carolina and a couple more states, whereas Hillary Clinton actually had closer victories in almost all of the swing states, just not with a wildly higher margin of victory that is less of importance as to actually winning each state.

During the democrat caucus month of February 2008 the over significance applied to Barack Obama winning republican leaning caucus states by non "fair reflection" winning margins of 2 - 1; along with the moving forward of the Illinois primary date from the usual late March date to the very first Tuesday in February 2008, enabled  Donna Brazille to cry racism because super delegates were all for Hillary Clinton even though Barack Obama was, ahem, winning caucus contests in republican leaning states where the caucus vote counts are actually done on pieces of paper, at night, and over a pro-longed period of time, which favors younger voters. Lets not forget that Michigan and Florida was punished for moving its voting date up, but Illinois was not, but that wasn't racist, apparently.

Donna Brazille demanded that the super delegates follow the will of the republican leaning caucus voting state's voters, versus being the "deciders" who actually tip the scale for which ever candidate they want to win. Brazille's premature antics resulted in an entirely too fast and too soon mass exodus of super delegates from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. 

But once the plain state caucuses in republican leaning states were over, a funny thing  happened. Hillary Clinton got over 55% of the popular vote the rest of the way. Based on the momentum going forward, the super delegates should have had the right to switch back to Hillary Clinton. However, if the super delegates had swung again back to Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazille would have once again cried racism. According to Donna Brazille, the super delegates should now stay the course and decide the democrat nominee even though Hillary Clinton was handily defeating Barack Obama after the February Plain's caucuses were finished.

So lets review 2008, because of a series of February 2008 caucus victories in republican leaning states, it was racist for super delegates to continue to stay with Hillary Clinton, but when the voting began in more mainstream states that actually use the voting booth to tabulate ALL the votes, and  Hillary Clinton was pulling the plurality of votes, it would have then been racist for the super delegates to switch their vote back to Hillary Clinton.

Flip to 2016 and the "woe is Bernie" meme in regards to the Super Delegates has begun anew.  It has just barely started but you will see it come to life in the next few days to the next few weeks, with the usual hostile progressive media groups leading the charge, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Fox will get in on it, so will CNN, and all of them will once again paint Hillary Clinton as gaming the system for already having most of the super delegates locked up.

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

The Power of a woman to make a man's shoulders slump, or, how militant feminists just focus on how bad men are and not on the power women already have.

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

Dateline, Lost in Suburbia, revealed the power of a woman in the clip presented above. If women already have power over men, then why can't militant feminists worry about being better women, rather than simply pointing at men as the bad guys?


Militant feminism appears to exist for the primary purpose of reminding women that men use whatever means necessary to rule over them. 

What militant feminism is remiss in doing is demonstrating how one sentence from a women's lips to her man's ears can make the man's shoulder slump.

As you can see in the very short video clip above (first there is a 15 second commercial), the husband's shoulders slump as he listens to his somewhat daft wife, who has held exceptionally high positions in the corporate world when she was employed, talk childish gibberish.

Rather than believing that men want to rule over women, I think it is safer to say that men fear stupid women, or women who just can't differentiate between how their own father treated them and how their husband tries to be a team provider for their own family.

Look at the power this woman has to deflate her husband's shoulders with just ONE sentence. It is absolutely amazing. Then she goes on about how he doesn't love her because his job does not pay enough, she is just so out of touch with reality at that moment in time.  


Later in the video, when it's revealed that if she brought in as much as he was bringing in, they could actually pay all of their bills, she seems to refocus on herself, and I would assume her husband is grateful for that respite.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Ladder to the Moon by Barack Obama's half sister is a tribute to their mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

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

One of my biggest pet peeves against Barack Obama was that he was writing his tribute book about his sperm donor father in the early 90's in Bali, even as his mother was being diagnosed and fighting cancer in Hawaii. Barack Obama literally had to fly over where his mother was fighting cancer in Hawaii to go Bali.

I have not been able to find an actual exact Timeline of Barack Obama's book writing in Bali and his mother's battle with cancer in Hawaii, but even if the book was barely finished when Stanley Ann Dunham was first diagnosed with cancer, isn't it odd that a book about his deadbeat and passed father was of such priority that he could not find the time to fight for the life of his still living mother?

Maybe the excuse would be, when Barack Obama was in Bali, his mother had not been diagnosed yet, when the book was finished, then he learned of his mother's conditions, and by then he could not afford the additional time off to be there for his mother.

Ok, I would be able to accept that, assuming it were true, and IF Barack Obama had not OWNED his mother's cancer treatment battle with the insurance companies as if it were his own personal struggle by referring to it during the 2008 democratic presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton, in campaign commercials, and then again in the second debate against John McCain.

It appears that Barack Obama chose to write his book about his deadbeat dad in Bali but then was not there for his mother when she was diagnosed with cancer soon after Barack's book was finished. The press has never asked him about the timing of these two relatively close events in his life.

Would you prioritize writing a tribute book about one of your passed parents and then not personally helping your still living parent in their battle against cancer? Would you then use your own mother's cancer experience, of which it appears you did not participate in, to gain sympathy and votes for your own career?

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

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

Current TV is for sale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediate article quotes Giuliani calling Huffington "The Worst Offender" of Personal Attacks

What I find kind of ironic is that Arianna Huffington ran two Shadow Conventions several years ago yet she attacks others, like tea party members, for doing similar things. Pretty good go around on MSNBC's Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough, guests included Arianna Huffington, Rudy Giuliani, Gene Robinson and Mort Zuckerman,

I sure LOVE not spending any time watching these cable news however. I'll take a classic sit com RE RUN like Seinfeld, or Everybody Loves Raymond, Yes Dear, or King of Queens, before I watch the cable news channels. And that won't change until the media admits they messed with Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign to make sure that Barack Obama won.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolfe Absolve Hillary Clinton For her Iraq War Vote without even realizing it, Amazing.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Richard Wolfe of Newsweek engaged in an incredible exchange during Keitho's Friday night show. (Feb. 06, 2009) The hidden message behind their discourse was so profoundly counter to the harrassment that they lathered on Hillary Clinton during the democratic primary race least year, right around the first of February of 2008.

Here is the excerpt that DailyPUMA has transcribed from last nights show. After you read it the first time, I'll explain how to decode the hidden message lurking within.

Keith Olbermann

Time to call in our own political analyst, Richard Wolfe. Good Evening Richard.

Richard Wolfe

Good Evening Keith.

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the economic numbers, which we just saw today those terrible unemployment numbers. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be unhappy, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of spending is gonna be inthere, but, in the end, the economic pressure, the political pressure from this president is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with this bill. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.  - END OF QUOTE

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

Mr. Wolfe is basically saying that the democratic senators really have no choice regarding the stimulus package vote, "whether they like it or not, it's gonna happen". Now, think back to the possibly paid off protestors during last years democratic presidential campaign that would follow Hillary Clinton around and scream at her for voting yes for the war in Iraq.

I'm going to take Richard Wolfe's own words, and by REPLACING JUST A HANDFUL OF THEM, the comment sounds exactly like justification for supporting George Bush going to war in Iraq.

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

Keith Olbermann

All right. Obviously the the moderates, the democratic moderates made this deal, Sherrie Brown was quoted about uh, about this before and several others, wha what about the other democrats, are they going to go along with this.

Richard Wolfe's comments, when applied to the vote on the Iraq War.

Yeah, I think they are. Uh, look. Everyone's feeling the same pressure here and the pressure comes not uh, not slightly here from the ongoing terrorism threat, which we just saw those terrible numbers, 3000 dead. Nobody wants to go out and face their own members in their districts or in their states and said-say that they didn't do something when the president was saying, saying it had to be done, so....

Yeah people are gonna get on board. Their gonna be nervous, yes its rushed, no, not every piece of the war plan is in there, but, in the end, the pressure to stop terrorism before it comes to the U.S. again, the political pressure from president Bush is just gonna be too great, and that was always the case with the Iraq war vote. This was all symbolic from the beginning, but now is coming to a head.

-------------------------------------------end of slightly altered quote.

I barely changed the passage, yet word for word it could have been used by Wolfe to describe why the Iraq war vote was going to pass.

One could try and argue that, well, Wolfe is talking about the party that is in power, that they are the ones in lock step with their own president. However, that argument falls apart because George Bush was saying, back me, we are in danger of another act like the World Trade center collapse if we don't fight the war outside of the United States. Factor in the argument that the troops in Afghanistan could be outflanked if Iraq was ignored, and the democrats were basically there to support the president. 

Blaming Hillary Clinton for George Bush's war was lame. Has a senator ever stopped a war? But suddenly the first woman candidate can only run and be accepted if she had stopped George Bush's war? What kind of a load is that?

Olbermann and Wolfe chastized Hillary Clinton for voting yes on the war in Iraq during the early stages of the 2008 democratic campaign race and used it as a reason why she could not be president of the United States. 

This was just another in a series of planned out anti Hillary smokescreens to discredit her campaign. As more and more of these plots come to light, it sure looks like a planned conspiracy from within the democratic party and the media to elevate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Will we ever find out if any of those anti Hillary protestors who claimed she could not be president because of her yes vote on the war on Iraq, were paid off? Olbermann and Wolfe sure appear to have been.

Rachel Maddow's very special Thanksgiving Message, I kid you not.

I am flabbergasted. MSNBC roasted Sarah Palin for being interviewed while Thanksgiving Turkeys were being killed in the background. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow gave a blessing over the image of the dead turkey below!

Can somebody explain why the pseudo intellectal Maddow can give a Thanksgiving day blessing on prime time television over the image of a headless roasted turkey and actually believe that this is somehow more "acceptable" than what Sarah Palin did???

If the Turkey pictured above was the same turkey being "prepped" during Sarah Palin's interview, would someone explain to me how Palin's interview was "worse" than what Maddow did? I think they are the same thing, and therefore you either accept BOTH, or you condemn both. Maddow's words over the picture of the roasted, DEAD, Turkey... "It is the night before Thanksgiving and even now we have many blessings to count" - Rachel Maddow.

The Hypocrisy, Stupidity, and Inconsistency of Michael Moore during the 2008 democratic presidential nominee race.

Something happened in 2008 that is still being covered up, and covered up big time. I believe it involves Hollywood and the promise of distribution deals to anyone who publicly backed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

As exhibit A, I would like to point out the utterly bizarre behavior of Michael Moore during the 2008 presidential election. You would think a man who built his early career success by portraying his own state as dying and destitute because the unions had been crushed by Roger Smith of General Motors, would fight for his state's right to move their democratic primary date up.

You would further think that since Illinois DID MOVE UP their 2008 primary date by SEVEN WEEKS to help Barack Obama, Moore would be complaining about Illinois getting preferential treatment while his own beloved state of Michigan was being disqualified from the voting process!

When one factors in that Michigan moved their primary date up out of economic desperation, how could Michael Moore not fight for his own state? 


Sequestering the vote tallies from Florida and Michigan until the beginning of February as a form of "punishment" was the logical solution. However, that would have made Barack Obama look foolish for taking his name off of the ballot in Michigan, and we couldn't have that now, could we?  


Instead, Obama and two other democratic presidential candidates purposely waited until the last day to legally withdraw their names from Michigan so they could then criticize Hillary Clinton for staying on the Michigan ballot. While some can claim that a brilliant political ploy, if Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan ballot first, Obama would have stayed on and cajoled and ridiculed Hillary Clinton for thinking it was all about her, and that she was so confident of victory that she didn't care about Michigan or its people.


In 2008, it was ok to portray Hillary Clinton as making a foolish political gambit, but never Barack Obama.

When Michael Moore put that one short video clip of Hillary Clinton interacting with Republicans in his documentary as a way of blaming her for Health care not being passed in 1992, I began to wonder what Moore's real agenda was. Healthcare not passing during Bill Clinton's first term had NOTHING TO DO WITH HILLARY CLINTON, and everything to do with how upset republicans were over losing to Bill Clinton after George Bush had had a 91% approval rating in early 1991. For Moore to skip over that reality is very disconcerting.

A documentary film maker who first profits over his own states demise, but then won't fight for his own state regarding the 2008 democratic primary makes me wonder just what other evil lurks in Michael Moore's pysche. Was the Hillary Clinton clip purposely put into Moore's documentary to help set her up as being "polarizing"? Did Moore get any distribution deals for going against his own state and Hillary Clinton?

Speaking of deals, did you know that the VERY FIRST COMMERCIAL that MSNBC ran after Hillary Clinton's suspension speech WAS A COMMERCIAL FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. If Hollywood wants to support one political side versus another, that is their right, but when Hollywood actually sabotages one democratic candidates chances to win the party nomination without full disclosure, in my opinion they have a crossed a line of ethics I cannot accept.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.