George Soros Admits Banks are now Sucking the Lifeblood out of the Economy and their Local Communities.

From the blog Not Your Sweetie comes an interesting recap on what George Soros thinks about Banks and the economy. LINK - George Soros and Zombie Banks.

Full Original Reuters Article can be found HERE.

Good Catch by Not Your Sweetie as it directly relates to why I am protesting against Chase Bank and what they just did to tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of their best customers.

Daily-Protesting.com is convinced that protesting in front of Chase Bank is better than just accepting Chase's oppressive and destructive "solutions" to being "more profitable" at the expense of their best customers.

DAILY-PROTEST dot com is now online and Chase Credit Card is the first target.

The biggest threat to millions of americans may just be the change in terms to ALREADY EXISTING CREDIT CARD DEBT! Chase Bank has basically decided that they can rework any credit card agreement that they previously offered to their customers at any time, and do it to the severe detriment and hardship of their customrs.

Rather than give an incentive in exchange for changing credit card terms, Chase is actually punishing its customers with their change in term proposals.

Daily-Protest.com has additional stories about credit card companies abusing their best customers. Daily-Protest will also feature any blog that reports on anyone protesting Chase Bank.

But the problem is not just Chase. If Chase gets away with chasing down their past credit card offers and changing them in a manner that will cause tens of thousands of americans to default so Chase can close out less profitable accounts, other credit card companies will be pressured to do the same thing.

If Chase succeeds, other Credit Card Companies WILL FOLLOW.

CitiBank is allegedly about to do the same thing as Chase.

So just what did Chase do? First, Chase offered low interest balance transfers to blue collar, honest, always pay on time customers. Chase and other credit card companies enticed their customers to pay off higher interest debt by offering them low interest balance transfer loans FOR THE LIFE OF THE LOAN. Yes, these magical, 3.99 and 5.99 percent loans were to help the consumer pay off higher interest debt specifically because of a consumers excellent credit history.

Presently, all the attention seems to be on those with negative equity and those behind on their mortgages. I have no problem helping those that badly off to try and get by, but to do it on the backs of the middle class that have been diligently paying down these low interest credit card offers is just outrageous, especially when the middle class cannot afford these changes.

DAILY-PROTEST.com is a network of protest blogs that will be peacefully protesting directly in front of Chase Banks across the nation. There is no money or support being offered. That can surely be found right in your community among those that are about to lose their credit ratings due to the credit card companies mishandling of this situation.

REWARD! ONE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD to ACORN INSIDER who LINKS ACORN with BARACK OBAMA'S MAXED OUT DONOR LIST and FUZZY CREDIT CARD DONATIONS.

HAPPY AFTER APRIL FOOLS DAY FOOLS DAY JOKE.

Why doesn't some rich person offer a reward to any ACORN informant willing to explain how all of those fake names with authentic credit card donations made it into Barack Obama's campaign coffers?

At the end of the day, can any campaign and resulting presidency be allowed to legally stand for a full term if it is known that tens of millions of dollars were donated illegally through those closely associated with the Barack Obama presidential campaign?

Afghan law requires wives to have relations with their husbands every four days, Not much different than Dr. Laura's Viewpoint actually.

Afghan Law Requires Women to have Relations every fourth day.

I would add the following rules to this law.

Rule number one. Woman should not be forced to get married, nor should they be discriminated against when it comes to employment and wage earnings if they remain single.

Rule number two. If a woman agrees to marry, she should be read the intimacy requirement prior to the marriage and voluntarily agree to it, or have the husband waive the rule should she not agree to it but still want to get married.

Rule number three. The intimacy clause should be negotiable every so often by both sides.

Rule number four. The mandated time for sex for both parties must be the same. If the woman must put out every fourth day, then so must the man, presuming the woman desires it. To have it be 4 days for the woman to put out, and 4 months for the man to put out, is unfair.

Rule number five. Counseling and instruction must be made available at any time if either person is unhappy with the other persons performance.

In my opinion this law was passed too hastily. I also am dismayed that this story is being described as "legalized rape". What it is is not thoroughly thought out and woman were probably not allowed to contribute their viewpoint to the law. It is shocking sometimes to see how manipulative the original headline from the original new story can alter what the real story is all about.

For you Dr. Laura fans, you know she advocates "taking care of your man." Is Doctor Laura wrong for taking that position? If not, then lets focus on what is weak about the law rather than condemning it with a catch phrase such as "legalized rape". I don't see the AP proclaiming that Dr. Laura advocates legalized rape even if she agreed with the four day rule.

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

Critics assail Afghan law that 'legalizes rape'
By FISNIK ABRASHI – 3 hours ago
KABUL (AP) — A new Afghan law makes it legal for men to rape their wives, human rights groups and some Afghan lawmakers said Thursday, accusing President Hamid Karzai of signing the legislation to bolster his re-election prospects.
Critics worry the legislation undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's strict Islamist regime.
The law — which some lawmakers say was never debated in parliament — is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not affect Afghan Sunnis.
One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
One provision also appears to protect the woman's right to sex inside marriage saying the "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."
The law's critics say Karzai signed the legislation in the past month only for political gains several months before the country's presidential election.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women, or UNIFEM, said the law "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
"The law violates women's rights and human rights in numerous ways," a UNIFEM statement said.
The strongest criticism came from Canada, a country that has lost 116 soldiers fighting the Taliban and spent up to $8 billion to support the Karzai government.
"The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week in London, where he's attending the G-20 summit.
Canada's Defense Minister Peter MacKay said he will use this week's NATO summit to put "direct" pressure on his Afghan counterparts to abandon the legislation.
The issue of women's rights is a continuous source of tension between the country's conservative establishment and more liberal members of society. The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa and a male escort from her family.
Much has improved since then. Millions of girls now attend school and many women own businesses. Of 351 parliamentarians, 89 are women.
But in this staunchly conservative country, critics fear those gains could easily be reversed.
Fawzia Kufi, a lawmaker who opposed the legislation, said several of its articles undermine constitutional and human rights of women as equals and take the country backward.
"All the efforts that were made in the last seven years to enhance women's rights will be undermined," Kufi said.
Karzai has not commented on the law. A spokesman, Waheed Omar, said the president is "aware of the discussion surrounding the law, and is looking into the matter."
Brad Adams, the Asia director for the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the law is a "dramatic setback for women's rights."
"It directly contradicts the freedoms enshrined in the Afghan constitution and the international conventions that Afghanistan has signed up to that guarantee the rights of women," Adams said.
Safia Sidiqi, a lawmaker from Nangarhar province who condemned the legislation, said she cannot remember parliament debating or even voting on the law and she does not know how it came to be signed by Karzai. She called for the law to be recalled to parliament for debate.
"It is impossible in a two-month session for parliament to pass a law more than 200 pages long," she said of the 263-page law.
Sayed Hossain Alemi Balkhi, a Shiite lawmaker involved in drafting it, defended the legislation saying it gives more rights to women than even Britain or the United States does. He said the law makes women safer and ensures the husband is obliged to provide for her.
As Karzai seeks re-election later this year, he is courting voters in the Shiite community, Kufi said. Women voters are presumed to vote as their husbands do.
"Women's basic freedoms are being sacrificed for the political and electoral gain of a few parliamentarians," Human Rights Watch's Adams said.
Associated Press writers Rob Gillies and Charmaine Noronha in Toronto contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

How Come the Biggest Consumer Blogs fall short of condemning condemnable actions by JP Morgan Chase Credit Card?

I have a friend with a Chase credit card. Approximately 2 years ago Chase Bank offered this person a 5.99% balance transfer offer until their loan was paid off. They were required to make a 2% monthly minimum payment. They have good credit and had reduced the loan from 13,500 to 10,000 by dutifully making their monthly payments on time.

Their monthly minimum payment on the 10,000 dollar debt is presently 200 dollars. Chase Credit Card is now going to raise the monthly minimum payment on this account from 2% to 5%. Chase's latest gambit preys on customers who had a good deal with them will probably help ruing their credit rating while robbing them of food to feed their families with. My friend's monthly minimum payment with Chase Bank is set to go from 200 dollars, to 500 dollars!

A three hundred dollar monthly increase is probably going to lead to default for my friend. The problem is not that Chase wants their money nor that they want their money back sooner rather than later. The problem is that Chase set up the rules, the customer completely abided by the rules, and now Chase wants to change those rules WITHOUT GIVING THE CUSTOMER THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT before the changes are made.

Citibank and many if not all other credit card companies have opt out clauses in their credit card policy that protect the consumer. I fear that if Chase is allowed to destroy the concept of "OPT OUT, other credit card companies will follow suit.

My friend can keep their 2% minimum payment option if they agree to have the interest rate raised from 5.99% to 7.99%. This creates the equivalent of an escalating monthly penalty that starts at around 18 dollars a month. However, when we factor in that each and every month 18 extra dollars goes towards interest and 18 less dollars is applied to the PRINCIPLE, the penalty will continue to escalate and extend the life of the loan.

After one year, we are looking at a loss of 500 dollars, and each year forward it will increase at least 100 dollars per year. So this one move by chase will cost my friend 500 dollars this year, 575 dollars next year, 650 dollars the following year. By the time this card is paid off, I am estimating it will cost my friend over 4,000 dollars in extra payments.

Prior to this latest move, Chase began, then eliminated a 10 dollar a month usage fee to anyone using their credit cards. Now Chase has figured out a way to replace a one fee for all with another fee for those who had solid credit that Chase trusted enough to give them a solid loan offer. Is it Chase's goal to first lure, then destroy every tier of middle class customer that presently exists with their bait and switch credit card tactics?

Chase credit card company already had the option of raising my friends rates for a late payment. If JP Morgan Chase Bank wants to so violently change the rules, then please allow your customers the right to OPT OUT and keep the existing agreed upon rules in place. It is the respectful, rightful, and ethical thing to do.

If somebody from the government does not step in and stop what Chase Bank is doing, even as the US Government is giving these same banks billions upon trillions of dollars, then we can all be sure that nothing has "changed".

JP Morgan Chase Credit Card Hurts Consumers but Looks Good to Wall Street Investors. What's Good for Wall Street is not necessarily Good for US.

(Edit Note). This topic got me so angry that I have started a protest website against Chase Bank and anybody else who follows them down their racketeering path.

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

Chase Credit Card already was lambasted by its customers for wanting to charge a 10 dollar a month "user fee". The 10 dollar monthly fee would have instantly made Chase a violator of their low interest fixed rate lifetime balance transfer offer, but Chase tried it anyways and had to be rebuffed by the New York Attorneys General office and Chase customers before removing the monthly fee.

In an effort to impress Wall Street by increasing their revenue, JP Morgan / Chase Credit Card has now decided that a customer's right to "opt out" to new changes in Chase's Credit Card terms no longer exists.

Chase Credit Card has opted out of allowing its customers to opt out of new Credit Card Rules that forces the consumer to increase their monthly minimum payment by 250 percent!

I believe Chase Credit card will probably have improved financial results next quarter because of their boorish tactics, and that Wall Street and the News channels will report Chase's "success" as "good news". The news statios will then conclude that the economy is recovering. What won't be reported is the misery the change in terms Chase has wrought upon good, honest people who were diligently paying down their debts and were not allowed to "opt out" when Chase raised their monthly minimum charge by 250 percent.

Hundreds of thousands of Chase Credit Card Customers accepted Chase's offer of low, fixed interest credit card rate balance transfer offers with rates that would never go up on the amount transfered if the customer was never late on their monthly payment. These customers have now been forced to accept a jump in their monthly minimum payment from 2% to 5%, or, they can keep the 2% monthly minimum payment but have their interest rate increased from 5.99% to 7.99%.

Ironically, I created a website a few years ago that demanded credit card companies raise their minimum monthly billing by a factor of 3 or 4 (aka 6% or 8%) called credit-card-cap.com. However, my idea was to raise the monthly minimum payment on new debt by beginning borrowers, NOT OLD DEBT in which such tactics can just burst a families tender economic bubble.

The changes Chase is making would be fine, as long as the customer had the right to "opt out" of these new changes. "opt out"means the customer is in essence closing out their account at the terms that were in play when the customer agreed to the original credit card balance transfer loan. When "opting out", the customer further agrees to continue to pay off the debt while no longer using the credit card. "opt out" is a fair and righteous protection that should be automatically granted to all consumers when dealing with credit card companies, yet the "opt out" option has never been given teeth by those who claim to protect us.

Our government, our consumer rights advocates, our president, and our congress people don't seem to think that you, the consumer, have a right to "opt out" and stick to the original credit card agreement that you signed up for. A deal is only a deal as long as the credit card companies can change it later on, without any recourse from you but to IMMEDIATELY pay off the ENTIRE debt or accept new terms which most often favor the credit card company and hurt the consumer.

Until credit card customers have the undeniable right to "opt out" from any sudden or new changes regarding the terms of their existing credit card agreement before the changes are made, the consumer will continue to get royally railroaded even as Wall Street and the financial news programs cheer the increase in revenue these leveraged consumer bashing manuevers will probably bring to the credit-card-companies.

Maybe the day is coming when ACORN will demand Barack Obama actually be for the consumer. Surely what Chase Credit Card just did is a strong start towards getting ACORN hopping mad, especially if Barack Obama does not intercede and demand that consumers have the right to "opt out" of changes made to their prior credit card agreement.

Domestic Abuse is out of Control. Nicole Word is Attacked in Court by Ex-boyfriend during her testimony. Judge Stops Attack, Media Idolizes Judge.

Remember the woman who called 911 because McDonalds STOLE her money and WOULD NOT give it back? McDonalds had run out of Chicken McNuggets and their solution was to give her a substitute meal of equal or greater value, but under no circumstances was Latreasa Davis or any other customer ever to get a refund. DailyPUMA wrote about it last month... ( Latreasa Davis is a Hero, not a Zero.)

Latreasa Davis had the guts to demand her actual money back from a McDonalds that was planning on giving her a substitute meal she did not want.

Davis was ridiculed by the media for calling 911 when in reality she was a heroic consumer advocate who wouldn't sit at the back of the bus after McDonald's refused to refund her money for a meal they could not produce. Davis's reward was to be charged with a crime for calling 911 while the media laughed at her.

It was not newsworthy for the media to report McDonalds stealing customers money and then giving the customer whatever McDonald's wanted to give, but it was newsworthy to taunt and ridicule Latreasa Davis for standing up and saying, "enough is enough".

This weeks female media victim is Nicole Word. Nicole Word, the Poster Woman for Repeat Domestic Abuse who so far had survived numerous alleged stalking attacks by her ex boyfriend, has now been dropped from her own story so the media could glorify the judge "who saved her".

Not only did Nicole Word have to survive repeated alleged threats against her life from her estranged "boyfriend", but just as she was testifying against him, IN COURT, he attacked her AGAIN! Click Above to see the RARE news story version in which Nicole Word is actually featured in the story along with the heroic judge.

Or click here to see the article and the video.

Sadly, the only reason this story even made the headlines was because of the video inside the courtroom. There would have never even been a story about the repeated domestic abuse attempts if the abuser hadn't then done it in court! So you would think that Nicole Word would be featured front and center. Nope. Instead, the story makes news across the county because of the "heroic" actions of the Broward County Judge, Ian Richards.

My question is, who is the real hero in this situation? Is Judge Ian Richards the hero for stopping an assault in his own courtroom, or is it Nicole Word, who fended off several alleged death threats and had to face her tormetor in court and then survive a beating by him in court?

According to the media, the judge is the hero, and Nicole is just a footnote. I base this conclusion on the following. I did several google searches. It was not until I put Nicole Word's actual name in that was I able to find a video that showed her being interviewed. In all other cases, the videos were all about The judges heroics in jumping over his own bench to save the female in distress from an attacker. GASP.

KCAL in Los Angeles ran the original video seen above, but has not archived this story in their own internet video library so after it ran on the air, it basically disappeared forever.

To glorify the judge without knowing about or hearing from the victim is just wrong. If you didn't already know the name of the female victim, odds are you wouldn't find the very scant coverage that included her own words about what happened.

The media has gotten adept at being wrong when it comes to how they view Women who are champions.

Ridiculing Latreasa Davis, Ignoring Nicole Word, Oblivious to unfair voting schemes that went against Hillary Clinton, or wrongfully championing Caroline Kennedy for a legislative position without her ever having even won a popular vote in her adult life, are all signs that our media is not able to repeat an original story without dumbing it down, especially when it involves courageous women in the news.

Addicting Kids to the Internet one Gogurt at a Time, Soupy Sales would be proud.

I like Gogurt yoplait yogurt because somebody I know who is very ill likes eating it. However, I don't like what I read on the individual packets that contain Gogurt yoplait yogurt .

There is a code number printed on each gogurt packet that entices the enticable to... Enter this code every hour for a chance to win!

If you enter this code number once an hour....

You could win a A Flip Ultra Camcorder. Enter at gogurt.com to see if you are a winner.

There are 32 yogurt packets in each box of gogurt and one could literally spend a good portion of each hour entering each of the 32 code numbers. I find this type of marketing to our youth unacceptable. Addicting kids to entering the same 32 code numbers "hour after hour" for a chance to win is manipulative. Not only does it get the kids hopes up, but it also probably gets the hit counting up for gogurt.com while addicting these kids to keep trying to win a prize.

This is just wrong. Yoplait, I love your gogurt product, but I hate the way you are getting kids to post to your site each and every hour. Back on New Years Day, 1965, Soupy Sales encouraged his viewing audience comprised of youngsters to go into mom's purse and Dads wallet and pull out the green stuff with pictures of men with beards on them, and mail them in. 80,000 thousand dollars, and one well deserved one week suspension, soon followed.

F Bombs and swear words may reduce how many googlers see your blog when they do a google search.

I recently read that if a blog uses profanity, including the f word, that the google search engine may automatically reclassify the blog as "adult".

Googlers can choose the "safety" level of their searches which includes an an option to avoid adult websites and blogs. Using the f-bomb in a headline or in an article may cause the google computers to reclassify a blog as "adult". Using the f word may just result in f'ing ones self when it comes to maximizing who will see a blog when others do a google search.

To PUMA Bloggers, please comment here if you think your new blog articles take longer than 30 minutes to update on Daily PUMA.

Daily PUMA does not directly control when your articles update. Sometimes DailyPUMA can delete and then re add a blog and the blog will update, but it is not a sure thing that that will work.

There are a few blogs that don't seem to update as quickly as other blogs. Maybe we can figure out if it is the same blog service that is having the delay by getting a tally on which blogs don't update relatively quickly.

If you feel your blog is not updating quickly enough on DailyPUMA, please leave a comment along with the name of your blog and how long you think it takes for the updating to actually occur.

Thanks!

From Hillary's Village - Forum, (03.19.09) "Former ACORN Employee: More Than Half Voter Registrations Invalid"(newsmax) Employee terminated by ACORN..

Link to Hillary's Village Topic, too bad the Republicans didn't care about what happened to Hillary Clinton during the 2008 democratic race.

Not caring about what happened to Hillary Clinton basically ensured that the Republican Party waited too long to investigate ACORN.

Wow, 60 Different PUMA Blogs posted new articles in the past 24 hours.

This seems like some kind of record to me, 60 new articles from 60 different PUMA blogs within the past 24 hours. Impressive.

Peanut Salmonella and FOOD SAFETY, FDA Apparently has very little power over the conduct and practices of food suppliers IN THE UNITED STATES.

Safety of Food Supply 2nd meeting by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee over the Peanut Salmonella outbreak revealed several interesting things. 9 people died from salmonella that was apparently linked to the recent peanut salmonella contamination.

The FDA has little power to investigate companies such as PCA (peanut corporation of America) peanut processing plant. Corporations
that sent their own quality control food inspectors to PCA and found the conditions deplorable, kept their discoveries "in house" and did not share the results with anybody else.

PCA was required to conduct their own investigation, hired a private company to do it, and magically received an A+ rating along with a certificate proclaiming PCA as a company in excellent standing.

John Dingall, a congress person from Michigan, took a swipe at the Bush administration by stating in the last 8 years nothing was done to improve the FDA's ability to prevent what happened at PCA.

I kind of wonder what the Clinton administration did in the area of food safety. I could see the issue being lost during Bill Clinton's first term in office because of the attempt at healthcare reform, two Republican led congressional shut downs over the budget, and then the Republicans contract with America. During the second term, Bill Clinton's hands were tied his final two years while Republicans witch hunted him.

Prior to Bill Clinton there was 12 years of Republican rule so probably more food safety inactivity could be found. Yet here we are in 2009 and food companies that violate health and safety practices are required to pay for their own investigation. It seems like the less money they spend, the less will be found "wrong", and that is exactly what happened in this instance.

Federal Judge orders Los Angeles City to Allow REALLY HUGE, OBNOXIOUS BILLBOARD ADVERTISING that Covers Entire Sides of Huge Hotels.

Photo from PSFK.com  (photo removed for copyright reasons)

It looks like World Wide Rush LLC and Sky Tag Inc., will get to blight the city of Los Angeles with huge billboards that hang from the side of really large buildings. 

 

I think Judge Audrey B. Collins erred in allowing World Wide Rush to basically get their way when it comes to hanging HUGE billboards from the sides of Hotels that can be seen from Los Angeles freeways and that are visible from freeway off ramps and freeway interchanges. It is kind of freakish to think that when I am driving a car I have to actually avert my eyes from distractions that are designed to, distract me into looking. 

 

Maybe Judge Collins assumed that the huge billboards will cause the drivers to look back up at the road from their text messaging and pay attention, sort of like, two wrongs, looking into one laps while text messaging, and looking into the skyline at huge billboard ads will cancel each other out and cause the driver to actually just look at the road directly ahead. There are other issues to consider, that is for sure. 

 

A hotel that is barely making it financially might find the revenue they receive from the billboard advertising to be the difference maker in being able to pay their California state and local taxes, oh the irony of that one. 

 

If the judge is forcing the city of Los Angeles to comply to the whims of "free speech bill board entrepreneurs", can a driver who is distracted by the huge billboards and causes a severe accident then sue the city of Los Angeles as well? 

 

Can the judge make a motion to deny all such lawsuits in advance? Or at least protect the city of Los Angeles from such lawsuits? Will car insurance companies raise their rates to those who drive by these huge billboards, thereby once again making it JOE citizen the one who ultimately subsidizes these ads? 

 

Or has the judge basically said that L.A. must allow huge, distracting billboards, and then allow citizens of L.A. to sue when those signs cause an accident, while also allowing insurance companies to raise their rates in these areas. Now that is one heck of a stimulus package. 

 

Or should we call it a scrumulous package? What if the ads are for fraud driven products? Is there a psychological ploy at work in which seeing something so ostentatiously presented must mean it is either ethical or truthful? Will politicians be on these huge billboards in the not too distant future? 

 

Big Brother Consumerism towers over U.S.

Link to Photo that was removed for copyright reasons.

Disney's Escape to Witch Mountain has controversial scene in it.

Years ago, a movie came out in which drunken college kids lay out in the middle of a roadway and attempted to prove their manhood by not flinching as unsuspecting cars drove by them. Of course, in real life a few drunken college kids tried this out as well.

As I recall, at least one person lost their life, and another person was badly injured.

In the Disney Movie Witch Mountain, we have a much younger person standing in front of a fast moving car. The fast moving car obliterates upon impact with the young person, aka a witch.

Just curious if this scene was necessary to the making of this movie, and I hope that nobody out there believes it is possible to stop a fast moving car by standing in its way.

Is this the kind of stuff that should be censored since it can influence the mindset of minors in a way that can be fatal?