Well, apparently it’s going to be raining in New York for the next several days. Atlantic City is already underwater, or so the media reports. While some are quite concerned about Sandy, I view it as an opportunity to clean out some of the trash that resides in the Northeast.
Don’t worry about me though. I’m ready for Sandy. Any potential looters should be on notice that I am bitterly clinging to my guns and God. And Sparky’s riding shotgun.
Lots of interesting things happened over the weekend…some sad, some not so sad. One sad thing that happened was the Tigers forgot they needed to score runs in order to win at baseball. The second thing is a combination of happy and sad. I went to Benihana on Saturday night to celebrate one of my kid’s birthdays. Hibachi always makes me happy because I get to drink a comically large beer while watching some guy in a big hat make a train out of an onion. Friggin’ genius, that is. It was also sad though, because said guy did not let me catch a shrimp in my mouth. See, I’m really awesome at catching stuff in my mouth, and I lost out on the opportunity to totally impress my wife and give her another reason to be proud of me.
What else….oh yeah, there was this Catholic Bishop in Green Bay, WI, who wrote a letter to his parisioners about the upcoming election. In it, he advised his flock that one’s religious beliefs should actually impact one’s life outside of church. Novel concept, I know. As a result, the Bishop recommended that voting for a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage candidate should probably not be done, since all three positions are in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. The only reason this is news is because Catholics have an inexplicable history of voting for
baby killers liberals.
And let’s not forget about the dumpster fire that is Benghazi. On Saturday, Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News that he has sources in the military that told him Obama watched the entire attack go down via live feed from a drone flying over the scene. No word on whether Barry had butter on his popcorn though. Yes, my many liberal readers, I can hear you now: “Oh, but that’s Fox News. You can’t believe them.” Well, usually I would attempt to corroborate their reporting with “objective” media outlets, except that hasn’t been possible in this case.
And then there’s the report going around the interwebs about General Carter Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, being forcefully retired because he attempted to disobey orders and send military assistance to Benghazi. By now you know that everybody and their mother received real-time emails from a CIA outpost that an attack was taking place, and when some Navy Seals attempted to go and help, they were repeatedly told to stand down. Of course, the Seals went anyway, and saved approximately 30 people before being blown up by terrorists after seven hours of fighting. The new rumor is that Gen. Ham, who was in a position to provide assistance, was fired when he attempted to do something other than complain about running out of Goobers. These may just be rumors, but it is a strange coincidence that he would “retire” at this specific point in history.
Of course, the best person to ask about what happened in Benghazi on September 11 would be the Commander in Chief. He’s too busy “bringing folks to justice” to take questions though. Exit quote:
Ultimately, as commander in chief, I’m responsible, and I don’t shy away from that responsibility. My number one responsibility is to go after folks who did this and we’re going to make sure that we get them. I’ve got a pretty good track record doing that.
In other words, the Prez is responsible. The buck stops with him. And at some point, long after the election, he’ll let everyone know that there was a serious communication breakdown somewhere, that absolutely positively did not involve him, and it will never happen again. But please don’t ask him about it right now, because he’s busy. Why don’t we all just do him a favor, and remove the heavy burden of being president from his shoulders. After that, he’ll no longer have to go through the strain of dodging questions.
I’ve watched a lot of movies about the CIA and stuff, and the whole Benghazi thing is certainly starting to resemble them. Before we begin, while I don’t listen to him much (since he’s a little too dramatic), I have to give Glenn Beck credit. He’s covering the murders in Benghazi far better than anyone else; and the national media is barely covering it at all. The whole thing is getting pretty weird. In fact, it’s becoming a little like the movie “JFK,” which, as my wife will admit, I watch a lot, and have decided that it’s 100% true no matter what some lame reenactment by the Discovery Channel tells me.
We wrote about this two days ago. You can find that article here. When asked about the emails that went to the White House just 20-30 minutes after the attack began, the Administration had no comment. Since then, some stuff has happened. First, we learned that Barry gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 12, the day after the Libya attacks. In the interview, he admits terrorists were behind the murders, which makes sense, being that we knew within two hours of the attack’s completion that terrorists were behind it. Curiously, the interview never aired. Why? It was certainly relevant to what just happened the day before.
This morning, CIA head Leon Panetta decided to throw himself into the frey, by asserting,
‘You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,’ Panetta said.
The whole “we didn’t know what was going on” theme has become tired, since various reports indicate that both the White House and Pentagon were receiving emails and had a live video feed from a drone flying over the area. Oh, and how much more information do you need than a mob of people shooting at a building containing our Ambassador?
And then there’s the following information, which has just come out:
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to ‘stand down,’ according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to ‘stand down.’ (Emphasis added).
Instead of followng orders to do nothing, Woods took it upon himself to organize a few people and go to the consulate to help out anyway. They evacuated the consulate, then returned to headquarters. What happened next is equally incredible.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
Both Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar at 4:00 a.m. Libya time, some seven hours after the attack began. You should read the entire article linked above. It’ll make you very angry.
The response to this attack by the White House was an abomination. And don’t let them tell you the CIA didn’t give the information, or it was the State Dept.’s fault. They all work for Barry. He’s the Commander in Chief of our military. In fact, handling stuff like this is literally the one thing the President has 100% responsibility over. I’ve implied it before, but I’ll say it outright now: the Administration wanted Stevens dead. There is absolutely no other explanation for why it repeatedly refused additional security before the incident, and refused to take action during the incident. And now they’re lying to everyone in an effort to cover it up.
Oh, and what did our leaders say to Woods’ father as his body was rolled onto the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Based?
Hillary: Sorry, and we’ll “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
Biden: “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?”
Good Lord. And these are the people who are going to protect this country?
To all of you who are either undecided or voting for Barry, consider this your Public Service Announcement
Sometimes, parents try to impart wisdom to their children, based upon their life experiences. For example, I once told my dad that I was going to be a professional wrestler when I grew up. He looked at me and said, “Are you retarded? You’re small, relatively uncoordinated, and cry easily. The Ultimate Warrior craps bigger than you.”
And then he said, “Son, get yourself a desk job. The Macho Man will be dead in a few years from unknown causes, and you’ll have a secretary who will tell your wife that you’re in an important meeting when you’re really just in the bathroom.” And you know what? He was totally right.
Experience is important. It’s what makes wise people “wise.” Why do you think the really good wizards are always old? It’s because they’ve presumably learned from their earlier mistakes when they accidentally turned the family dog into a dragon, which then proceeded to burn down the entire village. One can also gain experience via someone else’s experiences. For those of you attending public schools, this is called History (although your man-hating teacher may have changed it to “Herstory”).
Many clever phrases have been created to remind people of the importance of relying upon one’s experiences, or history in general. We’ve all heard them, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Or, “Insanity is doing the same thing while expecting different results.” Or, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.” All of these phrases mean the same thing: “Hey moron, you already tried that.” My wife prefers that one.
So, here we are. Almost four years after a majority of this country elected Barack Obama. I can remember it now…the hope, the Greek columns, the obviously empty promises. People bought it though. Lots of them. I didn’t. I knew he came from the Chicago political machine. I also knew what that meant. What has Barry given us in the past four years? Where are we? Let’s ask MSNBC. That’s right. MSNBC:
All snarkiness and bias aside, what would compel anyone to vote for him again? What has he done in the past four years to lead someone to believe the next four years are going to be better? Barry’s “jobs bill,” that the left continues to blame the Republicans in Congress for not passing, is just a smaller stimulus. And whether you want to claim the first stimulus created jobs or not is largely irrelevant. We were told that borrowing $800 billion would keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment just dropped below 8% for the first time last month (and I’ll bet you my lunch it will be back above 8% when the numbers come out in November). That’s failure by the Administration’s own estimatation. Obama has no other plan. He’s had four years. More people are on food stamps than ever before. More people are on welfare than ever before. More people aren’t even looking for work than ever before. He has failed.
And don’t let the left pull the wool over your eyes here. “No Congressional cooperation.” The President had a Democratic House and Senate for two years. He had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. He had at least two Republican Senators who were fiscal moderates and social liberals in Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Any assertion by anyone that Barry didn’t have the ability to control 100% of government policy for a significant period of time is simply lying. The fact is, he couldn’t get his own party to go along with him much of the time.
And Barry knows he’s failed. His party knows he’s failed. We can see this recognition in their own words. “We came in at a terrible time.” “Bush.” “Republican war against women.” “Romney was a vulture capitalist.” “Previous Administration.” “Romney pays too low of a tax rate.” “Bush policies.” “Romney doesn’t like that 47% of this country doesn’t pay income tax.” Does any of the foregoing constitute a plan for the next four years? Romney has a plan. He’s repeated it incessantly (Five Points). Some agree with his math regarding deficits; some don’t. But at least it’s a plan that everyone agrees will lead to significant job creation.
Are social issues, that the President has virtually no control over anyway, really that important to you? The left hopes so. They’re even walking out the multi-cultural triple-team from Hollywood. All they’re missing is Lucy Liu for ethnic completeness.
All I can say is “Huh?” Is this election really going to turn on abortion? Well, at least they didn’t parrot the nonsense about how Romney wants to take away your contraception. Look, I could sit here and pick apart the absurdity of this ad for pages, but I won’t, because I don’t think anyone who’s undecided really cares.
And it’s not just the economy that you should be remembering as you vote. Barry is also a serial liar. He lied when he asserted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents that he claims he never saw. He lied when he said he immediately called the killing of our Americans in Libya a terrorist act. He lied when he offered the stupid suggestion that gas prices were low during the Bush Administration because we were heading into a recession. What, are prices high now because more people are unemployed and we’re teetering on entering into another recession? Barry deserves to be hit in the head with a kettle everytime he has the nerve to question Romney’s honesty.
I don’t care what your opinion is regarding Barry’s demeanor. If you like him so much, have him over for a lively game of Rummikub.
He’s been a terrible president though. And it shouldn’t hurt your feelings to accept that. As my old man said, I couldn’t be a pro wrestler. Voting for the rich guy doesn’t mean you’re racist, or that you hate the poor, or that you want to cover lady parts with cellophane to keep them from getting involved in pre-marital shenanigans. It just means you’ve used your, that’s right, experience. If you do vote for Barry, however, you might just be insane. And ScarJo still won’t know who you are.
I split-screened the Tigers-Yankees game and the presidential debate last night. Actually, I had the debate on t.v. with the game on the computer. I did the best I could to keep up with both, but with Verlander being Verlander, there wasn’t a whole lot going on in the game. Here’s a list of the things I learned last night:
1. Justin Verlander is a stud, and obviously worthy of Kate Upton’s love and affection. Tigers one win away from World Series.
2. Gas prices are low when the country is about to go into a horrible recession. Prices are apparently 100% higher when the economy is still terrible. If you don’t understand this, it’s because you’re stupid. Obviously.
3. Barry hasn’t actually been our president for the past four years. It’s been Congress…or Hilary Clinton…or maybe the CIA. Except for that whole killing Bin Laden thing. That was all Barry.
4. Barry has a fantastic economic plan that, while entirely devoid of details, is way better than Mittens’.
5. Barry definitely used the word “terror” the day after four Americans were killed in Libya. While it wasn’t used in the context of actual terrorism in Libya, it is possible he was referring to Sharktopus.
6. Mittens has a binder full of women.
7. Automatic weapons should be illegal in America. They’re ok in Mexico.
8. Barry’s private answer on why his administration failed to provide adequate security for our embassy in Libya was apparently better than his public answer, says the guy who asked the question:
Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka: ‘I appreciate his private answer more than his public answer,’ he says.
9. Rich people suck , and they should be taxed more.
10. Mittens stared into the soul of the kid asking the first question. No, seriously,
‘Mitt Romney’s first answer — I felt like he was staring into my soul, just right through me, when he was asking me the question.’
11. Barry raged against the alleged Gender Pay Inequality Machine with the Lilly Ledbetter Act. This resulted in absolutely no change in the alleged inequality.
12. Barry’s love and respect for his single mother has lead to him paying female employees less than male employees at the White House.
13. People who are threatening to assassinate Mittens if he wins like to leave a papertrail for the Feds.
14. Mittens has more money in his pension than Barry does, and spends more time looking at it…just like this guy:
15. Barry’s economic plan is not built on government creating jobs.
16. Barry’s “jobs bill” involves taking tax-payer money and giving it to govt. agencies to hire people.
17. Barry kept his promise to pass a comprehensive immigration law by doing nothing about immigration.
18. Phil Coke has a filthy slider. I added that because my wife hates it when I use the term “filthy” to describe a pitch.
Nope, I haven’t written in a while. Things have been busy and such. Regardless, I’m sure we’ve all been paying attention. People are starting to realize that Barry doesn’t really care about them because he’s been sitting on his Great New Economic Plan for four years. Plus, people are starting to realize that Mittens isn’t a jerk. As such, the good guys are actually, slightly, in the lead. Last night was the Vice Presidential Debate. The left is excited because Joe “I’m from Scranton, which is totally blue collar, so I’m totally blue collar; did I mention I’m from Scranton” Biden was “passionate.” Everyone else thought he was a belligerent tool who drank a little too much Jameson’s Irish Whiskey before the debate.
Paul Ryan was, well, Paul Ryan. A polite, handsome, slightly underwhelming guy, who didn’t hurt us.
While I am now scarred with the picture of Joe Biden’s teeth having been burned into my head, I am even more terrified of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy. Here’s what I took from last night: we’re absolutely, positively leaving Afghanistan on a specific date in 2014. And dammit, everybody better know it (including all of you terrorists hanging out in a cave). Why 2014? Because that’s the arbitrary date we chose. Of course, according to Biden, the job is done in Afghanistan. We’ve already been successful in meeting all of our goals. O.k. Then why not pull the troops out tomorrow? Or 2013? Because that isn’t our arbitrary date! So, if we’ve been so successful, why are we there? Apparently to train the Afghan military…so they can shoot our troops in the back. Why are we decreasing the number of Americans fighting in Eastern Afghanistan, as Ryan argued? So we can have more incompetent Afghan troops accompany the fewer American troops into battle…while shooting them in the back. In other words, the Obama Administration has absolutely no plan for Afghanistan that his based on anything other than its arbitrary 2014 date. I put more thought into what I’m going to wear to go running (Just kidding. I don’t exercise).
And why not go into Syria, like we did Libya? Joe said something about geography. Of course, the real answer is we were talked into helping out with Libya by Western Europe, because Western Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya. We don’t get any. Hence, there’s no strategic reason why we would have done anything in Libya. We arguably have a strategic reason to get involved in Syria though, since it’s a hot-bed for terrorism, and has a crazy leader with lots of chemical weapons. Oh, and they’re shooting at our NATO ally Turkey. So, again, the Administration is seemingly throwing darts at a map when it comes to what conflicts we should get involved in.
And then there’s Iran. We heard a lot about sanctions during the debate last night. We heard a lot about how tough the sanctions were and that they’re the toughest sanctions in the history of the world, and so forth. That’s great Joe. We’ve leveled tough sanctions against Iran. They’re “isolated,” whatever that means. Of course, despite the super-serious sanctions, Iran is still enriching uranium, at an increasingly quick pace. And this shouldn’t be a surprise. Sanctions only impact the population. The crazy dudes running the country are still dining on whatever it is they eat, and dreaming about virgins in their silk sheets. It’s the people who we’re starving out with sanctions. Don’t believe me? Look at North Korea. We’ve been sanctioning them since what seems like the beginning of time. And during that time, they’ve continued their nuclear bomb project and their crazy dictator has continued to live in luxury (by North Korean standards), while the people starve to death. What’s my point? Sanctions don’t work against dictators who don’t give a crap about their people. In fact, sanctions make it easier to maintain power. Tim the Spoiled Lettuce Salesman is less inclined to come up with revolutionary plans when he’s worried about what his kids are going to eat for dinner.
O.k. So we’ve established that sanctions don’t work. So what’s Joe’s response to the fact that Iran continues to enrich uranium despite the sanctions? Don’t worry. Iran still doesn’t have a missile to put the bomb on. Well that’s reassuring. So our policy is to wait until Iran gets a missile, and then do something? Isn’t it a little late at that point?
You see, this is the worldview of the naive. And libs have always been dangerously naive when it comes to the world. The Administration’s Middle East policy has been a disaster, and it isn’t debateable. And it’s a disaster due to a combination of the aforementioned naivety, and incompetence. Our Embassy in Libya was denied extra security multiple times before it was attacked, and despite the State Dept. confirming that fact, Biden proceeded to tell a completely different story on national television last night. There is dark cloud forming on the horizon, that is made of a new alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and Syria, and it’s being completely ignored by Barry.
Simply put, the world remains a dangerous place, and the Administration is acting like we’re all just having a disagreement over what flavor Tootsie Pop is the best. Honestly, hearing Biden last night made me feel a lot like this:
Scared. It made me feel scared.
Primary season has officially arrived in Illinois. Even though early voting has been going on for a while now, and the actual voting is almost upon us (the 20th), I really didn’t feel the upcoming election until last night, when, as I was trying to find my remote control, I began being fed propaganda by Mitt Romney. Many people hate these commercials. Not me. At least I’m not being forced to watch another advertisement about stuff I’ll never use; like tampons. I’m not a woman, but I did marry one (SCORE), and I’ve never seen her do gymnastics during that time of the month. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen her do gymnastics at any time of the month.
The point is, I like political commercials. It was nice to see Mittens all up in Santorum’s grill during his thirty-second spots. I didn’t see any for Santorum. Do these commercials really impact how people vote? It seems unlikely. For example, I was on the fence for a while, between Mittens and Santorum. But then Santorum said he’d heavily regulate internet pornography, which caused me to immediately fall/jump off the fence onto Romney’s well-manicured lawn. Santorum’s porn position was not mentioned in Romney’s commercial.
Truth is, I’m voting for Romney because he can win…I’m not convinced Santorum can. And winning matters. I like being part of a winning team, even if I sat on the end of the bench. Winning increases self-esteem, and chicks don’t dig losers. Also, Obama’s a friggin’ train wreck, and not the kind you can’t look away from. Problem is, the wreck is everywhere.
Take his monumental health care plan, for example. Obamacare is right up there with shooting an unarmed man in the face in terms of Barry’s Greatest Hits. Of course, all of us with an ounce of common sense (and by “common sense,” I mean the realization that stuff costs money), knew that the healthcare bill would cost way more than the administration was claiming. Why? Because you can’t subsidize the health care of millions without it costing lots of money.
Well, the CBO just updated its cost estimates for the kindler, gentler version of single-payer healthcare, and those estimates have provided strong support for Nancy Pelosi’s immortal words: “We need to pass it to know what’s in it.” What’s in it happens to be slightly more than the gross domestic product of Italy, circa 2010:
President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
President Obama’s proposed budget would add $6.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
And this is before the thing even gets implemented (coming in 2014). I can hear the liberals now…actually I can’t. My guess is we won’t hear anything from the left on this. All we heard from the left during the debate about Obamacare was that it would be deficit neutral. That they’d find the savings by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in Medicare. That they’d lower health care costs. Well, those things all turned out to be inaccurate. So, either the administration was criminally negligent in the quality of accountants it hired, or it simply lied. I’ll let you decide which.
All of this leads me back to the beginning. I’m voting for Romney because he can win (and he hasn’t mentioned regulating porn). In fact, I think he will win. Don’t look at national polls; look at local polls in the swing states. And don’t look at them now, because Obama is currently running against himself; even he can’t lose that race. Once Romney gets the nomination though, he’ll (hopefully) start pointing out Obama’s many large and distinguished warts. Does Romney have some of his own? Sure (see: Romneycare). But at the end of the day, we’ll have a very successful businessman up against a college professor who has presided over the worst economic recovery since our last little-dictator shoved the New Deal disaster down America’s collective throat.
My son loved Thomas the train when he was younger. For my wife, the love was annoying, because it resulted in Thomas movies being played on continuous loops and those little die-cast metal toys lying around the house. For me, the love was helpful, because buying the Boy toys for his birthday was easy.
It’s common knowledge that the Boy’s infatuation with trains is shared by our Vice President Joe “this is a big f’in deal” Biden. In fact, I picture Joe-Joe in his mom’s basement, wearing his overalls and train conductor hat, watching his trains travel all around his magical miniature town.
It’s also common knowledge that America’s primary passenger train, Amtrak, is a giant black-hole of suck when it comes to taking money out of the pockets of tax payers. A 2008 study revealed the following,
Pew’s analysis indicates that the average loss per passenger on all 44 of Amtrak’s lines was $32.
In other words, taxpayers paid $32 for every ticket being sold for an Amtrak. As much as some people may love trains, no one uses the friggin’ things. Why? Who knows. Maybe because few people want to sit in close proximity to other people. The point is, without taxpayer money, Amtrak would be bankrupt.
Based upon the foregoing, subsidizing passenger trains would seem to be an easy place to start cutting the budget. Not so, say the libs. Instead, they’re doubling down.
The federal government is pumping nearly $200 million into high-speed passenger rail projects in Michigan.
About $195 million will be used to upgrade tracks and signals between Kalamazoo in southwestern Michigan to Dearborn, just outside Detroit. The work also will increase train speeds to 110 mph between Chicago and Detroit.
Another $2.8 million will be used for an analysis of a new station in Ann Arbor.
Is there really that big of a demand for Kalamazoo to Dearborn service? I’m guessing not. What possible justification is there for this nonsense?
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says Monday the funds are part of a $2 billion investment stretching from the country’s northeast corridor, through the Midwest and on to California.
Lahood says the investments will help create jobs and spur economic development.
Question: does anyone actually believe that investing billions of dollars to build high speed rail from the Midwest to California is going to “spur economic development?” How is this going to happen? Are people going to start communting from Kalamazoo, Michigan to Los Angeles everyday for work?
One advocate for high speed rail recently offered the following liberal-approved arguments in support of high speed rail:
High-speed trains cost more to build (to truly run at 150 mph, you need a dedicated, grade-separated track like the one that California has proposed), but they can charge more per ticket and can displace airport congestion, saving taxpayer dollars. In many parts of the world, these systems pay for themselves and boost local economies.
There are two main problems with these assertions. First, there is no truth to the “it will improve the economy” argument. If there was any money to be made in high speed rail, we wouldn’t need the government to build it. Instead, a private company would do it. That’s what happened with most of the railway lines currently in use today. For example, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway lines were largely built by private companies seeking to make a profit.
The second problem is in the assertion that the cost of the high speed rail can somehow be offset by charging higher ticket prices. In other words, these trains will pay for themselves. While I appreciate the optimism, I find it slighly absurd to argue that high speed rail, with higher ticket prices, will not require subsidies, when Amtrak, at a lower cost, does require them.
Simpy put, high speed rail is even more of a boondoggle than FDR’s New Deal programs were. Building the infrastructure will cost loads of taxpayer money that we don’t have, with contracts being given to those companies with political connections. And after it’s completed, more taxpayer money will be needed to subsidize the operating of the trains, because no one will ride them.