We interrupt our usual scathing criticism of all things Washingtonian to give you a break, since we are also taking a break.

Yesterday, on a whim, we decided to go see the Transformers movie sequel.   We didn't see the first flick in the theaters, but we did see it on DVD, and while it was a bit juvenile (it's target market), we still enjoyed it enough to be interested in the sequel.   So, we caught an  afternoon matinée, and viewed the digital projection version of the flick in a theater with about 11 other people - nothing like an empty theater on a weekday afternoon!

While the flick was more ambitious than the first both in plot-line and special effects, it isn't as good.  Perhaps that is because the first flick was relatively fresh (we are not Transformers fans from the cartoon days).  Anyway, even though the first flick had some plot problems, the sequel has some really big plot problems that are harder to shrug off.

Problem #1)  Early in the flick lead character Sam Whitwicky's home becomes infested with small transformers, for reasons we won't spoil.  Transformer Bumblebee must come and rescue Sam, destroying all the little transformers in the process.  Yet, Bumblebee, supposedly highly intelligent alien life, doesn't seem to be remotely curious about why Sam just got attacked by all these small transformers that popped up out of nowhere.  Not the least curious.  Very silly. 

Problem #2) Sam comes across something that would have obvious importance to a Transformer, but he doesn't tell Bumblebee or any other Transformer about it.

Problem #3)  Sam's love interest, Mikaela, has her own encounter with a small Transformer, which she captures as it is trying to crack a small safe.  Ultimately, Mikaela puts it into a metal box in order to bring it to Sam.  The little transformer can crack a safe but can't cut it's way out of a sheet metal box?  Come on!

Problem #4) An evil transformer is introduced that can take human form.  Ok - this creates all sorts of problems for the entire story-line.  Can't go into anymore details without giving too much away, but the Terminator-meets-Transformers line was a dumb idea that did very little to add to the overall plot of the flick.  It was in fact, a groaner.

Problem #5)  Ok so this is maybe a minor thing, but the actor that plays a key General in the film is the same actor that plays the Colonel at the desert base that is destroyed in the first flick.  The problem is that in the first flick, only a small squad escaped from the base, there were no other survivors.  So while we could accept the guy getting promoted from full bird Colonel to General (3 star though??),  we had a real hard time with the guy being resurrected from the dead.

Problem #6)  Sam must locate something that the Transformers have been seeking for thousands of years.  So how does a kid solve a mystery in a relative few days that all these highly advanced sentient mechanical beings could not over the span of several Millennium?

Problem #7)  Sam's parents are in the way, and add nothing to the plot.  We're glad these two actors got paid and all, but we would not have missed them at all if they were not in the movie after the first 10 minutes or so.

Problem #8)  A fair amount of time was spent watching a huge evil Transformer assemble itself.  Didn't add to the plot and was just the CGI guys showing off.

Problem #9) The climatic scene was too long, and too obviously a formula repetition from the 1st flick where Sam has to negotiate a series of way too contrived obstacles to get to the goal.

Problem #10) Something happens to Sam near the end of the movie that just left us baffled as to why it happened, and how it was resolved - can't go into more details.  We think this was just plot over-loading.

Problem #11)  The military types seem blissfully unaware that the evil Transformers are monitoring all their communications and know everything they know in real-time.  How could that be since they knew how successful the evil transformers were at cracking military networks in the first flick?

Problem #12) The evil transformer assault on the 'secret' good transformer base, stealing a special object that was supposed to be super secure as easily as taking candy from a baby.  It was a groaner sequence

Problem #13)  CGI overload.  Unfortunately there are several CGI scenes which are totally unnecessary and are clearly in the flick just because.  Director Michael Bey lost his head on the CGI stuff, and unfortunately it actually takes away from the movie.  He should have learned from the George Lucas Star Wars prequel disasters.......we guess not.

Those are some of the bigger problems, though there are others we can't really talk about without giving too much away.

Megan Fox, the actress who plays character Mikaela, recently was quoted as criticizing the movie somewhat for being too heavy on CGI and too light on acting.  Her comments were rebuffed by the director of the flick, Michael Bey in an ego-filled diatribe of self-congratulations.

Well, Michael Bey has made gazillions, so maybe he's entitled to the big ego, but in this case, he should listen to the upstart actress whose career he takes credit for making.  She's right.  Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen is over-loaded with gee-whiz CGI and weak on story, and this hurts the movie.  While we still found the flick entertaining, Mr. Bey fails to realize that it could have been much much better had he exercised some restraint in the CGI department, and done a little more with the human characters in the story.

In the end, it's worth the money to see it, so long as you can shrug off the plot problems as they occur. 

        

Here is a quick note and a stark reminder of what peril our stupid Federal legislature is getting us into:

As we have posted several times before, the Great Depression of the 1930's was not caused by the stock market crash of October 1929.  The Great Depression was caused by Congress raising taxes and enacting protectionist trade tariffs after the crash, during a severe recession.

So, when we read that the so-called "cap and trade" bill has passed the house, and is moving to the Senate - we take note of the critics who correctly observe that "cap and trade" is simply a liberals dream super massive tax hike disguised in politically correct global warming terms.

And on top of that, many States are also raising taxes rather than slashing Government.

The Chinese are pissed at Congress over their 'buy American' crap, and have announced their own 'buy Chinese' program in retaliation.  The Mexicans and Canadians are also pissed.

Satirist Al Franken was awarded Norm Coleman's Senate seat by a liberal Court for a liberal super majority in the Senate.  As Josef Stalin once said ""It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."  Nothing could be more true in the state of Minnesota.  We are living in a one-party system at the moment, and are seeing all the ugliness that such a system brings with it.

Icebergs surround us in the night.  The watchmen sounding warnings are being ignored.

America slips into an ever darker place. 

        

We caught the tale end of Special Report with Bret Baier tonight and heard Juan Williams the liberal NPR commentator and Fox News analyst criticize the upcoming Government infomercials being offered by CBS and ABC "news" on the national healthcare debate.

You want to feel embarrassed for the decision makers at CBS and ABC for being so blatantly nakedly in the back pocket of Barack Obama.  Not even the slightest fig leaf of pretense of being objective reporters of fact.  It's our own taste of what State run media is like.  And we thought it would never happen here - that's a warning, because there are other worse things that many of us scoff at as not capable of happening here, and we are 100% wrong.  It's so awkward for this country it makes you pause and wonder if Jay Leno isn't going to pop out of the stage wings and say - "Fooled Ya!!".   It should be a satire skit on SNL, but it's not.

You know things have gotten to a new height of kooky weirdness in this country when a liberal commentator publicly does a 'what's up with that!?' double take on the liberal media.  Hurray for Juan Williams being a liberal with both eyes open!  We give him a standing ovation!  The major liberal media outlets sense that Obama is failing, and they are pulling out all the stops to try and stop it from happening. 

Meantime, while the debate rages in Washington over healthcare "reform", just remember this:  Talk to almost any Brit or Canadian about their socialized medicine and you will be nothing short of astonished at the passion they respond with how much they hate the system.  There are things we can do to improve our healthcare insurance system, but nationalizing healthcare is absolutely not the solution.

For ABC's parent, The Walt Disney Company - you can forget about seeing us at a Disney theme park or viewing a Disney movie or buying any of Disney's consumer products.  The only sway we hold over Corporate America is with our wallets.  We say boycott the Walt Disney Co, and Viacom as well, over this outrage. 

        

Clinton had travel-gate, and Obama has his Ameri-gate (very fitting on many levels).

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General for Corporation for National and Community Service, a Government Sponsored Corporation, was summarily fired by President Obama.  At the time, contrary to the rule of law (which candidate Obama promised to uphold as never before), President Obama fired him without notifying Congress of the reasons for dismissal, or invoking the mandatory 30 day waiting period.  He wanted poor Mr. Walpin out and he had to go NOW.

So what did the Inspector do that was so horrid it required his immediate dismissal - so grave his malfeasance that the President of the United States was compelled to ignore the rule of law?  Was it National Security? Some other grave threat to the Nation perhaps?

No.  According to Obama, backfilling the paperwork require by law to satisfy Congress, Mr Walpin performance at a contentious Board meeting was 'dazed and confused', that Mr Walpin had the audacity to want to telecommute a few days a week from his home in New York,   that he was less than candid with a Board he just got done criticizing, and he had other disturbing traits that apparently were too disturbing to spell out.

So, does that sound like all fine and dandy reasons to have the guy not only sacked, but sacked on the spot? 

Of course it doesn't. 

There are no coincidences inside the Washington Beltway.  As has been widely publicized, Mr Walpin's due diligence uncovered something funky going in Sacramento.   Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama pal runs an outfit that got roughly $800,000 Federal funds, and Walpin issued a report alleging misuse of at least some of those funds.  Johnson was forced to repay about $400,000 as part of a settlement struck with the Board of CNCS, a settlement for which Walpin in turn criticized the board too.  A double whammy.  Not only did he bag an Obama supporter, but he pissed off everybody up the chain by doing so.  That's what an IG is supposed to do - hold people to account.  He did, and the people he pissed off reached out to Obama, and got Walpin fired for it.

From a business as usual standpoint, we doubt anyone is particularly surprised that a Bush Admin hold-over would get canned by Obama on a whim.  However, the problem here is that this sort of stuff is precisely what Obama the candidate claimed he would not do.  Obama lied, as we knew at the time he was lying.  And we were right.  The hard left wingers in this country were going to vote for Obama under almost any circumstances, but it was the center-right that put Obama in office, and ostensibly because they wanted the "change" Obama promised.  What they got instead was a President who has repeatedly demonstrated a certain measure of contempt for the constraints of the law.  That's what the center-right voted into office.

Where was Obama's outrage that pal Kevin Johnson misused at least $400,000 of taxpayer money?  There was none.  There was only outrage that somebody caught him, and made him pay it back.

The firing of Mr. Walpin is inherently corrupt.  For Obama to reach into the process and fire an inspector general under such a pathetically weak pretense sends an unmistakable chilling message to all the other Inspectors in government.   It also signals to all the FOB's (Friends of Barack) that they can screw the American taxpayer for all they can get away with, because an IG won't take them to task for fear of retribution/dismissal.   Think about that.  Think about the President of the United States shooting the messenger and letting the offender walk-away without so much as a finger-wagging. 

Think about this 'changeling' President at the epicenter of a totally corrupt act. 

Think about that.

Three and a half years to go.......

        

                 


Like most weekdays, we dropped in on the Drudge Report to see what's going on in the world, and Drudge's top headline blazed "Fed War on Cigs".  The link to a myway.com article by Jim Abrams discusses recent action in the Senate to empower the FDA to regulate cigarettes, particularly the nicotine content of tobacco.  It's something the tobacco industry has been fighting for a long time, and up until today had been able to quash similar efforts.  But we suppose with the new found giddy enthusiasm for Government trying to control every possible aspect of our lives, this latest effort made it through the Democratically controlled Senate without much trouble.

Cigarette puffing Obama says he'll sign it into law if it makes it out of House/Senate "conference".

On any given day, we all can expect the legislative process to be rife with hypocrisy.  We've gotten so used to it, that not only do we assume it is so, and expect it, but we have also in very large measure accepted it as the norm.  We shouldn't.

Nonetheless, here we have a glorious example of multi-tiered legislative hypocrisy.  As we blogged before, earlier this year Obama and his super majority of Socialist Democrats passed an historically huge increase in cigarette sin taxes.  This after Obama promised not to raise taxes on the little guy - and most cigarette smokers fall into this demographic.  The rationale at the time was to raise funds to pay for an unnecessary increase in child health care coverage - which the Bush Administration successfully opposed earlier.

Now, with the historic huge cigarette tax in place, Obama and his Socialist co-horts are going to enact sweeping powers to rule over smokers.  The stated goal?  Supposedly to make tobacco use so unpalatable that few if any Americans will take to the leaf.  Or so they say. 

Think about this now....Obama needs cash from smokers excise taxes to fund kiddie health care, but he wants everybody to quit smoking.  We don't think so.  We think he wants the tax revenue more than he wants people to kick the habit.  Nicotine addicts have become an important revenue source for our increasingly oppressive Government.

The cigarette industry long ago discovered if you reduce the amount of nicotine in tobacco, smokers have a tendency to smoke more cigarettes.  In fact, the Federal Government warns of this effect itself - see this FTC bulletin.  Congress wants the FDA to rule over nicotine content.....the inference is to reduce it, perhaps one day to order it eliminated.  But Congress needs smokers tax revenue to fund it's health care program....so the solution to driving up tax revenue is very clever, order nicotine lowered in tobacco products so that those addicted to nicotine will use more of them, paying even more tax. 

Hypocrisy in action.  A cigarette smoking President, who just socked smokers with a huge tobacco tax to fund a pet program wants smokers to quit the habit.

We aren't the Stupid Nation for nothing.




(Full disclosure:  We hold a small position in Altria Group stock)

        

           

Rush Limbaugh these days refers to much of the "main stream media" sardonically as the 'state controlled media' in reference to the fact that the majority of media outlets are leftists, and in the tank for the administration.  In the United States today, the grand exulted "free press" has been free to collude, both actively and passively with the Obama Administration to make an otherwise sorry excuse for a President look as good as possible. 

It's getting harder to gloss over the problems with Obama and his administration, but there is a long way to go before those Americans who get their "news" exclusively from "main stream" news outlets start hearing the hard truth, even though the truth is out there for the taking, if one let's their fingers do the surfing on the web.  The single best alternative news source, in our opinion, is the Drudge Report.

But we digress.

In the leftist beacon, the New York Times, on June 5th an article was published written by Nicholas Kulish titled Rift With Germany Is Next on Diplomatic Agenda.  Along with the usual general-speak on tensions between the US and Germany, there was in interesting statement:  "On a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies."  Frankly, much of the article was chock full of apologies for Obama and how he's not a bad guy, just a misunderstood youngin' and all the usual crap one can expect from a Times article.  But that one little itty bitty sentence says an awful lot about the true current state between Obama and our traditional friends and allies - they are being all but ignored.

In the recent past, Obama has managed to snub the British, the French (not exactly our friends but...) the Germans.  Obama has also managed to piss off the Canadians, and members of Obama's administration have infuriated our neighbors to the North with their dunderhead statements.  The Mexicans are also very unhappy with the Obama Administration over cross-border trucking, and generally pissed at talk of dismantling NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).  And then, of course, the Israelis are by this point wondering if Obama isn't a full blown anti-semite (anti-semitism and Marxism seem to go hand in hand for some reason, so we wonder about that ourselves).

Then there is the bowing to the Saudi Arabian King (also not exactly friends in the literal sense, they put up with us because they want our cash and our military protection), the embarrassing warm greeting to Hugo Chavez, overtures to communist Cuba, aid cash to Hamas - a known terrorist organization, and overtures to Iran, and some reports of overtures even to the Taliban. 

As we posted during the Presidential Campaign, we concluded from Obama's flowerly rhetoric on what his intentions were on the international scene that what he really intended was to alienate our friends, and embrace our enemies.  And that is precisely what he's doing.

Like the cliche goes - many Americans may be dumb, but they are not stupid.  Slowly a growing number of American's are realizing that President Bush was to President Obama what jumping out of the frying pan is to the fire. 

It's all bad. 

        

    

Well!!  There is so much news going on, it's hard to pick what to write about this day.  However, as the title of this post gives the subject away, we chose to chat about the latest North Korean temper tantrum.

We haven't been watching much TV news lately, so by chance we caught Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier tonight.  During the program Charles Krauthammer - one of our favorite political analysts - was asked for his opinion on the North Korean mess.  Kauthammer made a couple of points we'd like to echo.

1) American policy towards North Korea is a failure.  Mr Krauthammer suggested that the policy failure arcs over the last three Presidencies; Obama, Bush and Clinton, however, here we respectfully disagree.  American policy toward North Korea has been a failure since the armistice was signed July 27th, 1953.  One could argue that the armistice itself was a policy failure of sorts.  General MacArthur seemed to feel that way.  For two generations North Korea diplomacy has centered around two basic concepts:  incentives to promote desired behavior, and appeasement to promote desired behavior.  We might offer a third concept of economic sanctions, however, North Korea has amply demonstrated it's willingness to absorb any economic 'punishment' the international community of nations can lay upon it.  So much for sanctions.  So the policies of incentive and appeasement have failed miserably.  And while the Bush Administration's get tough anti/appeasement policy seemed to produce some promising results, for reasons not yet fully public, even this policy sputtered and stalled in the waning days of the Bush Administration.  The publicized reason given at the time was that North Korea wanted us to take their word for it that they were eliminating their WMD program, and we were strangely reluctant to do so.

2) North Korea is currently doing what it does best - throwing the equivalent of a childish temper tantrum in order to get attention, and get what it wants.  Ultimately, what the personality cult regime wants is survival, at the expense of it's own people.  And since it can't survive on it's own, under the best of circumstances, North Korea will always and forever need outside help to maintain this unacceptable status quo.  Mr Krauthammer suggests it's time to throw in the towel in a way, admit failure and arm west-friendly nations - particularly Japan - with nuclear weapons as a means of re-drawing the re-drawn balance of power map in the region, and as a way of incentivizing not the North Koreans, but the Chinese to step all-in to the game.  Krauthammer's got another good point here.  We can't go on pretending North Korean isn't a nuclear power, and we certainly can't bury the fact that North Korea is especially hostile to South Korea, the United States, and Japan in that order.

So what are civilized societies to do with a depraved increasing desperate personality cult regime, and it's crumbling prison-state?

Call their bluff.  Arm Japan and South Korea with nukes.  Deploy missile defense, and increase missile defense spending rather than eliminating it.

Over these last two generations, the nutso but very keenly observant North Koreans have learned that if you are an unstable regime, all you have to do to get what you want is to throw very carefully timed/planned tantrums.  It is very analogous to feeding the screaming toddler.  The child learns that screaming gets Mom and Dad's attention, so it screams more, until Mom and Dad finally figure it out and stop feeding the screaming.  It is precisely the same child psychology at work here.  Only we are not dealing with children, we are dealing with demented individuals with the power to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.   Metaphorically speaking, you don't feed the crocodile hoping it will eat you last.  Instead you slay the crocodile, one way or another. 

North Korea didn't set off a nuke test because it's deranged ruling class were bored on a lazy Monday.  It set off the nuke because it wants to be fed - something.  What exactly that something is the public doesn't know, but is currently known to the US and other national governments involved in the stalled talks.  The firing of missiles and testing of weapons of mass destruction were executed on the day America pauses to remember its honored war dead, and that's no coincidence.  It's big bang diplomacy at it's most childishly transparent, and we should not play into the game.  Time to flip the bird to Kim Jong Sicko.

Arming Japan with nukes is a very controversial step, first because of Japan's quest for empire during World War II, committing unspeakable atrocities on it's conquered peoples along the way, and because of Japan's own deeply rooted psychosis against nuclear weapons, since they were the only nation on earth to-date who have ever seen first hand what these awful devices can do to civilian population centers.  While the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction may not work very well when the opposition doesn't really have a problem with seeing millions die, it's all we've got.  So like it or not, Japan and South Korea had better start acquiring nukes.  That's about the only thing we see that will spur the Chinese to meaningful action.  Otherwise, it's just another day in the Asian neighborhood.

Don't feed the screaming child.

(PS - We are well aware had we the misfortune of being born North Korean, that if we had the temerity to write this piece, we would likely be on our way to meet our maker right about now.  An American Memorial Day axiom: Freedom is not free.)

        

We are relieved no end that there are still a few articulate conservatives with the willingness to stand up for what's right and speak out.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney:  " It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation.  You've heard endlessly about water boarding.  It happened to three terrorists.  One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl.  We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about Al-Qaeda.  We didn't know about Al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know.  And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all."

If you followed the rabid media hysteria on the subject of waterboarding terrorists, you would have walked away from the TV thinking, as we did, that waterboarding was part of the in-process at Gitmo - like rectal exam strip searches are done to new prisoners in American jails.  As it turns out all this hub-bub, all this outrage and horror over this effective technique of cracking the most depraved of the terrorists occurred on just three occasions, to three terrorists who declined to cooperate when asked nicely.

Not one,

or two,

but three. 

Three terrorists got 'the plank'.   Out of all those terrorists - only three were waterboarded.  And the media wants you to think that half of Afghanistan was waterboarded.

Cheney goes on to say:  "We hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative.  In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.  People who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.  Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11.  We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance.  Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings.  They were trying to prevent future killings.  To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.  What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme.  It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe."

Indeed he is right as rain on this point.

We haven't forgotten that Dick Cheney wound up on the wrong side of the Iraq war - namely that he participated in the rush to war and played a key role in committing America to battle.  We've said before that we do not disagree with taking out Iraq, but even so, the right war for the wrong reasons is impossible to live down.

Nonetheless, Dick Cheney is spot on regarding terrorists and the urgency to extract all that they know in order to prevent future acts of mass murder, if not attempted genocide.   Waterboarding doesn't diminish "American values", of which, the protection of innocent life is paramount.

And while we are on the subject of this false righteousness of Obama and his leftist cabal, try to reconcile this:  Obama claims it is horrific to waterboard three depraved killers bent on mass murder, but it's OK to abort a fetus for almost any reason, at anytime.  We are kinder, and gentler to the most wretched human forms alive than we are to unborn life.  And supposedly, those are "American Values" . 

Think about that.

        

In a very well rehearsed speech at Notre Dame, President Barack Obama spoke of listening to and considering opposing views.  Sounded nice, unless you realized Obama was telling his opponents they had to listen to him, but HE didn't have to listen to them.  Because, after all - Obama won, and the Nation lost.  This theme has come up over and over in the Obama Administration - the concept of 'coming together' to seek common ground means you capitulate to Obama, or else.

Barack Obama doesn't understand a whit of free market economics, and hates free market business in the classical Marxist way.  So when he stood on that podium in Elkhart, Indiana and declared to bankers 'You can't get corporate jets. You can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer's dime." He was declaring the new paradigm of Government control of the American banking system, and he incidentally crapped on the entire state of Nevada at the same time. 

You see, for all the belly-aching about expensive Corporate junkets to places like Las Vegas, the fact is that those conventions played a part in the overall national economy.  And Nevadans sat up and took notice when hundreds of business conventions were subsequently canceled.  It was a severe blow to the Las Vegas economy.

So the Republican Governor of Nevada requested (or demanded, depending on your point of view) an audience with Obama to press the case for just how harmful Obama's comments were to the Nevada economy.  The President, who urges finding common ground and  consideration of opposing views, flipped the political bird.  Remember - Obama doesn't consider opposing views and never has, it is up to his adversaries to consider, and ultimately embrace his views.  There is no bi-directional exchange of ideas here, and any claim to the contrary during carefully rehearsed speeches is simply a lie, and a very big lie at that.

It's amazingly contradictory and hypocritical.  Here is President Obama swooping into Nevada, aboard the most expensive and luxurious private jet in the world, on the taxpayers dime,  to campaign for Democrat Harry Reid's re-election, while refusing to have a fireside chat with the Governor of Nevada over Obama's harmful remarks impacting the state's tourism industry.  It's so heartwarming to see Obama reaching across chasm of the Marxist left to the free market right.  Also consider that Obama solemnly swore to the huddled masses in Elkhart, that money-losing fat cat bankers would not get fat cat bonuses, and wouldn't be able to private jet around or play at expensive resorts on the tax payers dime.  Yet that is precisely what President Obama and many members of Congress do themselves.  The Federal Government is awash in red ink, losing more money than all money losing Corporations combined, and Obama zips around the Country in his private jet, and members of Congress frequently do the same (Nancy Pelosi has a well-publicized penchant for military jumbo jets herself).  With the nation awash in red ink - let Obama take the train, and let Congress go Greyhound.  After all, fair is fair:  With the Government taking over much of the financial industry, now the auto industry, and soon an attempt to swallow healthcare - which is 1/6th of the economy -  America, Inc. has to have some accountability doesn't it?

As for those fat cat Corporate types....there are many ills in the world, but the truth is that the money those people sent played it's part in creating jobs for others.  The interconnectivity of the economy was never so ably or accidentally demonstrated when Corporate spending dried up in Las Vegas, and left many thousands unemployed. 

Way to go Obama! 

Just remember the Obama refrain:  'I won, you lost'.

The proper thing for Nevadans to do is greet Obama warmly, and then throw Harry 'The Iraq War is Lost' Reid out of office.

        

The below link needs no embellishment or further discussion from us.  We call your attention to it in as part of our effort to educate an ignorant population to the dangers within. 

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867

Do you still think you are safe & secure in your own home?  Do you think you have the right to due process?  Do you think you have a right to face your accusers?  Do you think you have the right to a speedy trial?  Do you think you have the right to a lawyer present during questioning?

You should, but you don't.