SOCIALISTIC NEWS ARTICLE RIPS BARACK OBAMA WITH SOME ACCURATE CRITICISM'S.

This is getting confusing. The Republicans are trying to gain a stronghold in the 2010 election cycle by calling Barack Obama a socialist, meanwhile the Socialist movement rips Barack Obama on many fronts and wants nothing to do with him!

However, I still think that the people that used to like Barack Obama also don't see the republicans doing anything to deserve huge gains in next years election, and these swing voters don't want socialism either.

This is getting really weird.

Here is the rather powerful one paragraph critique of Barack Obama's Jekyll and Hyde economic vision.

CLICK ON IMAGE OR HERE TO ENLARGE.

Check out the entire socialists network article, "Obama Poll Numbers Plummet", here.

For a more detailed assessment of the bank's role in the Barack Obama administration, "Big Banks Grow More Powerful under Obama", click here.

What is interesting about this second article is that all the actions taken, that the article condemns, were taken under the George Bush Administration. However, the article explains how it was the Wall Street Veterans that Barack Obama happily embraced that have allowed the power of the banks to grow by leaps and bounds AFTER Barack Obama became president.

HOW YOU CAN HELP! MAKE A DAILY-PROTEST.com sign and put it where others will see it. Daily-Protest.com signs can be placed in a storefront window, a bulletin board at work, or a countertop. Raise curiosity and awareness about how Chase Bank is harming a LOT of of their BEST customers by making a Daily-Protest.com sign.

Latreasa Davis is a Hero, Not a Zero, and should not have been arrested for calling 911 about McDonald's Chicken McNugget Bait and Switch Agenda.

The police arrested Latreasa Davis for "wrongfully" calling 911 when her Chicken McNuggets order was substituted to whatever McDonald's felt like giving her. "You PAID for a garden salad, well, try our super nachos al grande instead, we INSIST".

You decide to purchase the purple prius with gold plated hubcaps, "Well we're going to exchange your purchase "request" into a hummer because it is of equal or greater value, and we have a bunch more of them in stock anyways". That's fair, right?

The McDonalds in this particular situation offered meal substitutions whenever they did not have what the customer ordered! This is shockingly socialistic. If this particular McDonalds did not have what the customer ordered they would give something else of equal or greater value. The CUSTOMER HAD NO CHOICE NOR WOULD THEY GET THEIR MONEY BACK!

While the media tries to get everybody to play along and laugh at Latreasa Davis, Latreasa Davis is a righteous hero in my book. I only wish Latreasa Davis could be recognized as the flash point for THE birth of real consumer rights in this country rather than being ridiculed by our very own stupid media.

While everyone mocks Davis's use of 911 for a Chicken McNuggets order gone wrong, the real issue here is that there is no way to instantly report blatant corporate stupidity and have someone from the government actually show up and protect the consumer from the corporation.

We should all be concerned that not only is there no way to get instant action over corporate arrogance, if you try to get instant protection, YOU WILL GET ARRESTED and be made fun of by the media.

McDonald's should be picketed for actually thinking it is OK to take a customer's money, and then decide what food to give that customer. McDonald's offer of a free make good coupon to Ms. Davis is the final condescending insult from the corporate world to the consumer.

For those of you who don't take this editorial seriously, I DARE YOU to accept someone else's money for a specific product or service that you regularly sell, and then inform the customer you do not have their item and instead will be giving them something of equal or greater value of your choosing, and that under no circumstance will you give them back their money.

I double dare you to try that. Actually, please don't, as I don't want to be responsible for your premature demise or likely injury that may result.

Would you really accept such shallow treatment if it happened to you?