Don't Touch My Junk!

Something in there might bite back.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/20/airport-security-protests-disrupt-holiday-travel/

Piss on Palin Weekend: Former First Lady Barbara Bush Dumps on the Reality TV Star, Then a New Poll Piles on For Good Measure.

Sarah Palin might want to call her cable company and cancel CNN. In a new interview with walking sarcophagus Larry King (first link at bottom), Barbara Bush expresses her less than favorable view of the former Alaska governor: “I think she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.” Ouch!

But Barb does have one good thing to say about Palin: “She’s beautiful,” crowed the old bat. [BTW, Old Man Bush, who also participated in the interview, had some rather hilarious and largely incoherent comments when asked what he thinks about the tea party: “Well, I don’t know what it [the tea party] really is, Larry . . . I’m confused by it, frankly.” Maybe it’s time for Barb to put ol’ H.W. out to pasture. But I digress.]

CNN also serves up the proverbial Double Whammy on Palin, releasing a new poll supporting the viewpoint expressed in this space earlier in the week, i.e. that she cannot beat Obama. According to the new poll (second link at bottom), almost half of the American population (49%) already has an unfavorable view of Palin, and the poll has her losing to Obama by 52% to 44% -- a weaker showing than other potential GOP candidates.

But it’s not all stormy skies for Palin. She still has her reality show, her small sliver of the republican party that still supports her, and a husband who still loves her. Sometimes you just have to embrace the little things in life.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/barbara-bush-to-palin-stay-in-alaska/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/18/palin-says-she-can-win-but-faces-uphill-climb/

Shock Report: ONLY "One in Five Americans Mentally Ill" According to New Government Study.

The new report is from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and it finds that "more than 45 million Americans, or 20% of U.S. adults, had some form of mental illness last year, and 11 million had a serious illness" (link to full story at bottom).

To me, the unbelievable part of this new report is the fact that only 20% of the population is assessed as being mentally ill. Let's see here: Loony left-wingers comprise approximately 20% of the population, and deranged right-wingers represent about 35-40% of the population.

That makes at least half of the American population certifiably demented, sick in the head, and perhaps in need of a lobotomy, shock therapy or some other form of treatment. Methinks SAMHSA needs to revise its numbers. Or maybe SAMHSA's the one who's deranged?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40257359

President Trump? I Would Say Stranger Things Have Happened, But When Would That Have Been?

"Business tycoon and publicity hound" Donald Trump continues to drop hints that he might run for president in 2012 as a republican (link to full story at bottom). My offhand reaction? I say go for it, Donnie Boy.

We've seen the republican establishment have its feathers ruffled by a non-establishment right-wing movement (i.e., the tea party), and I think it would be great to have that same establishment shaken up a bit by a rogue non-establishment candidate from the center, such as Trump. I think I can fairly accurately predict that Trump would have positions and ideas all over the place (which I can admire), and that he would hold up pretty damn well in a debate.

And here's another thing: He would have to be taken seriously. He would have plenty of money to pour into his own campaign, and he wouldn't be running as some sort of Ross Perot third-party candidate. The best performance of any third-party presidential candidate in American history was the very charistmatic former president Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and he was only able to get a paltry 27% of the popular vote.

Put another way: Third-party candidates don't win the presidency. Trump running in the republican field would be critical to him having any chance. So we'll see if he actually runs. And as indicated -- if he does, he might just be dangerous.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/18/trump-sounds-the-presidential-alarm-again/

Fox News Executive Decrees From On High: "Obama Has a Different Belief System Than Most Americans." NO WAY!

Those were the words of the ancient head of Fox News, Roger Ailes (pictured on right), in a new interview with The Daily Beast (link to full story at bottom). And just for good measure, Ailes adds the obligatory "socialist" blast: "The president has not been very successful. He just got kicked from Mumbai to South Korea, and he came home and attacked republicans for it. He had to be told by the French and the Germans that his socialism is too far left for them to deal with."

Now, leaving aside that I really don't care too much for heads of news divisions going around spouting their own personal political views (maybe I'm just old school like that), Ailes' pronouncement that Obama has a "different belief system" than most Americans strikes me as perhaps the biggest "No Shit, Sherlock" statement that I've heard in at least a few weeks. The facts are simple, and they sure as hell ain't rocket science:

Obama is a member of the far left. That's his world view -- always has been, always will be. The far left represents about 20% or less of the American population. So of course he's out-of-step nearly all the time with about 80% of the country. It really doesn't take some genius or Washington insider to tell us these things.

What I love is when the leftists still try to argue to this day that Obama is some form of "moderate." Moderate compared to what? I could answer that question, but I'll decline since it takes us down a road that I don't much like to travel. Suffice it to say that it's not necessary to use such words as "socialist" and other similar labels when it comes to Obama. Such argumentative phraseology means different things to different people and ultimately just bogs down the discussion with endless debates over what a "socialist" is.

Obama is a far leftist. There is no need to go beyond that description, nor to act like one is imparting some great wisdom by proclaiming that Obama has a "different belief system" than a majority of Americans. Only the blinded partisan ideologue or the liar (same difference?) would claim otherwise.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-16/fox-news-chairman-roger-ailes-slams-white-house-in-exclusive-interview/

New Poll: Only 26% of the Public Thinks Obama Will Be Reelected.But I Say, Not So Fast!

The Drudge Report calls the new poll a "Shock Poll" (link to full story at bottom), although I don't really find anything shocking about it. However, I do disagree with it since I think the odds of Obama being reelected are a hell of a lot higher than most people think. At this point, a full two years out, I'm going to go ahead and handicap Obama's chances at 50/50. Here's why:

First, I think it likely we'll see some improvement in the economy and the unemployment rate over the next two years. That will mean some bump in the bad polling numbers that Obama has been pulling over the last year plus. Second, with the new Congress, Obama no longer has the power to foist massive unpopular leftist legislation down our throats. The leftist who can't act is the leftist who can't offend (or at least not nearly as much as if he had the ability to act).

But here's the most important factor for why Obama has as good of a chance as anyone of winning the 2012 presidential election: His republican opponent. As a preliminary matter, if Sarah Palin runs and can somehow obtain the GOP nomination (which I do think is a real longshot), then game over: Four more years for Obama.

But even in the likely event that Palin is not the GOP nominee, the remainder of the GOP field leaves much to be desired -- essentially a motley crew of boring white male retreads, has-beens and never-weres: Newt Gingrich; Mitt Romney; Mike Huckabee; Tim Pawlenty; and Haley Barbour. Nothing says excitement and energy quite like that particular cast of characters!

Now, do the republicans have some up-and-coming talent that just might be dangerous in a presidential run? Most def. But men of action such as Chris Christie and Paul Ryan, and men of soaring rhetoric such as Marco Rubio, won't be running in 2012. So let's give Obama at least a 50/50 shot in 2012, and perhaps I'm even underestimating his chances.

Final comment: I'm largely an impartial observer in this whole thing. As an Independent, and following what we've witnessed the past two years, there's only one thing that matters to me in this rotten two-party system with which we must deal: Balance of power.

I think Obama, along with W Bush, is one of the two worst presidents of my lifetime, but it's not like the GOP is going to be putting up some wonderful candidate in 2012, because they won't be. If Obama is reelected, then so be it, just so long as the democrat party never again has supermajorities in the House and Senate along with a democrat party president. That was the primary issue in the 2010 midterm elections, and it will likely be the most important issue for me and many Independents for the rest of our days.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45136.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111506597.html

Say Hello to My Little Deal Sweetener:It's a Getaway Driver's Dream, As Florida Car Dealer Offers Free AK-47 With Truck Purchase!

If you've recently set your sights on knocking over a gas station, pulling a bankjob, or hatching a fat property heist, then the Nations Trucks used car dealership in Sanford, Florida might just provide you with some very convenient one-stop shopping. Over the past week, the dealership (whose website sports the motto, "We sell trucks, Not Gimmicks") has been offering a free AK-47 assualt rifle with your used-truck purchase and has seen sales more than double in the process (link to full story at bottom).

I can just imagine some of the haggling conversations that have been going on at this joint over the past week: "Look Mac, I talked to my manager and we can't go down on the price any farther, but if you'll just sign the damn papers, I'm in a position to be able to offer you six free oil changes here at the lot, a free undercoat before you leave, and a free AK-47 assault weapon in case some jerk tries to cut you off in traffic. Whataya say, Mac?"

When asked why the dealership picked an AK-47 rifle, in particular, to be the freebie at the heart of the current promotion, the general sales manager cited the weapon's (1) popularity with the local crowd ("Our clientele is not gonna complain about a gun") and (2) apparent ability to create a buzz when contrasted with other, more-pedestrian deadly firearms ("An AK-47 was gonna be controversial").

However, at least one local man opposes the promotion, observing that "an AK-47 is a very dangerous weapon." And he's correct, but doesn't such a matter-of-fact concern tend to miss the entire apparent point of the promotion (i.e., pleasing the locals)? BTW, no word yet on local law enforcement's reaction to this promotion, although I'd assume the cops would be thrilled at the thought of any effort designed to get more military-style weaponry off the shelves and out there into the streets.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/15/ap/strange/main7056345.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesSecondary

Loony Left-Wing Tub of Goo & Apparent Homophobe Michael Moore Rants at Barack Obama: "Take Off Your Pink Tutu!"

That was the blast from the demented Moore on this weekend's "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO, with Moore's point being that Obama needs to get "tougher" and start "fighting" harder for his far leftist agenda and policies.

You really have to love how these leftist freaks are always the first to condemn any person they view to be a homophobe (just so long as that person is not a democrat or fellow leftist), but yet they are free and are the first to drop mindless homophobic rhetoric whenever they see fit and without any repercussions (e.g., the equally wacko leftist Maher had no adverse reaction whatsoever to Moore's blast). Just another day in the life of the mindless partisans and ideologues who inhabit our two esteemed political parties.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/13/michael_moore_to_obama_take_off_the_pink_tutu.html

What Is This World Coming To?Florida Woman Allegedly Fired BecauseHer Breasts Were Too Big!

As a preface, you are correct: If there's an oddball story and it involves boobs, then it probably will find its way to this blog. With that behind us, what a weird story from Orlando, where a behavioral health organization employee named Amy-Erin Blakely (pictured on right) has filed a lawsuit against her employer, The Devereux Foundation, which allegedly canned her because of her cans -- they were allegedly too large! (Link to full story at bottom).

And Blakely's employer had better watch out, because Blakely has enlisted powerhouse "high profile case" attorney Gloria Allred to represent her. The lawsuit filed by Blakely and Allred this week includes various DD-Size allegations which center around Blakely's rack and which, if true, make the company's management team look like a real bunch of slimeballs:

-Blakely accuses Devereux's managers of "humiliating" her by "focusing on my breasts as opposed to my performance on the job." (Perhaps they just suffered from double vision?)

-She says one of the managers "talked about how large my breasts were and that I needed to 'hide' them" around the workplace. ("Damn pesky distractions," I guess was the thought process).

-She says her managers accused her of being "too sensual" for the workplace and wouldn't promote her because of her "sensuality." (What did they want her to do, anyway? Put on a burka?)

Devereux CEO Robert Krieder, who would probably be best advised to keep his mouth shut, is nevertheless firing back at Blakely and her various busty allegations, denouncing them as "purposefully inflammatory, and either spurious or twisted in content and context." Yeah, tell it to the jury, pal. And have fun with Allred. Maybe you can try and "hide" from her, which might actually be your best course of action.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20022630-504083.html

Outrage: California School Dumps Upon the First Amendment Rights of 13-Year-Old Student, Bans Him From Displaying the American Flag on His Bicycle.

The Sacramento middle school student is named Cody Alicea, and he says he's been flying the American flag for two months on the back of the bike that he rides to school (links to full story at bottom). He says he flies the flag on his bike to express his patriotism and to express his appreciation for American veterans, such as his grandfather. Alicea reportedly treats his bike flag with the proper respect, folding it and putting it in his backpack during the school day.

The Denair Middle School didn't care about any of this until this (Veterans Day) week, banning Alicea from flying the flag on his bike as he arrives at and leaves from school. The school district superintendent, Edward Parraz, says the school took this action after some Hispanic students "complained." Parraz blamed potential "racial tensions" for the decision to ban Alicea's American flag, saying that such tensions "boiled over" at the school earlier this year around the Mexican Cinco de Mayo holiday.

I recall when that stuff happened, and my recollection is that it involved punks wearing American flag attire from head-to-toe in an obvious attempt to stir shit up with the Hispanic students. Well guess what: That's certainly not what we have going on here.

You know, I'm not much on the "sue everybody" mentality that pervades the nation nowadays, but if I was Alicea's parents, I'd go see a constitutional law attorney. Believe it or not, minors do have First Amendment rights, subject to the school's ability to place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions upon student speech in order to protect the integrity of the educational environment.

And when it comes to a reasonable restriction upon speech, this sure as hell ain't it in my opinion. If this school actually has students deranged enough to want to start trouble with Alicea for merely sporting an American flag on his way to and from school, then the school needs to gets its ass in gear and take steps to protect Alicea from those slimeballs. That's the damn answer, not imposing a prior restraint (i.e. censorship) upon the political speech of a student contrary to the very fundamental American right of free expression as set forth in our First Amendment.

And I note that this story emanates from Sacramento, California. Gosh, what a surprise there. Because central and southern California might as well be completely separate countries from the America we know here in the heartland. To the students who "complained" about an American flag while living in America, and to this idiot superintendent Parraz who lent merit to those asasnine "complaints," why don't you come out here to the midwest and try to ban our young people from sporting the American flag if they see fit. Here in Missouri and Kansas, we still wave Old Glory at down at the courthouse (to quote the old song), and if have a problem with that -- Kiss My Generation X American Ass.

Update: Reports on the Net tonight indicate that the superintendent, obviously in response to a public outcry across the country, has today reversed course and will permit the boy to wave the flag on his bicycle. But that still doesn't change the fact that the school district initially made a decision that in my view violated the free speech rights of this kid, and that decision stayed in place for days until today's sudden reversal. This school district should be absolutely ashamed of itself even regardless of today's about-face.

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-americanflagbike11122010,0,3045879.htmlstory
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329204/Student-13-told-remove-Stars-Stripes-bike--avoid-racial-tensions-pupils.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Remember.

http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2010/11/veterans-day-2010/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101110/pl_ac/7163596_veterans_day_history_background_and_key_dates_1

GOP Congressional Freshmen Say They'll Limit Their Number of Terms: MY! Aren't We Full of Ourselves!

"I'm only going to serve six terms in the House." "I'm only staying for 12 years in the Senate." Those are the kinds of highly presumptive blasts coming out of the mouths of newly elected republicans in the U.S. House and Senate. As Politico.com reports today, about half of the more than 80 new GOP House members vow to self-impose term limits, while a number of new GOP Senate members are saying the same thing (all of them typically saying 6-12 years will be their limit) (link to full story at bottom).

Kind of putting the ol' cart before the horse, uh boys?! Have these clowns not paid an iota of attention to the 2006, 2008 and 2010 elections? Independents kicked the GOP to the curb in 06 and 08, and we thoroughly enjoyed doing the same thing to the leftist democrat party one week ago. The message: If you're an incumbent in the rotten cesspool that is Washington DC, then your seat is not safe under any circumstances. The last thing any of these slimeballs in either party should be doing is talking about how they will "only" be in DC for X number of years.

Now, all of that being said (and I was being somewhat facetious), Politico also observes that all this big talk from these GOP freshmen will likely breathe some new life into the rather dormant term limits movement. And that's nothing but a positive. In my opinion, the only bad term limit is no term limit. I've heard all the arguments to the contrary, but I'm still waiting to hear any truly compelling reason for why we shouldn't have legislative branch term limits when executive branch terms limits have long been a routine and accepted part of our American political culture.

And when I espouse congressional term limits, I like to think that I'm fairly liberal (in the literal, not political sense) on the whole issue. I'd be fine with terms limits of 12 years in both the House and Senate -- a full four years longer than the typical executive branch term limit of eight years. Hell, I'd even take something longer than 12 years just so that we could have some (any) term limit in place.

So maybe I shouldn't be so hard on this bragadocious hot air from the GOP freshmen. Because if it has the consequence of bringing the term limits issue back into the middle of American political discussion, that's only a good thing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44930.html
http://www.termlimits.org/

"Independents Fueled GOP Wave" on Election Day 2010: Politico.com with a Firm Grasp of the Obvious.

That's precisely what I said on election night (although I believe I used the phrase, "boot in the ass"), and it's not like it was some sort of brilliant observation on my part. Independents -- who make up roughly 40% of the American population -- decide elections. I often say that. Know why? Because it's an undeniable fact. The democrat party and GOP know it, although they hate talking about it and hate being reminded of it. And on Election Day 2010 one week ago, Independents nationwide overwelmingly voted against the democrat party's iron grip on power in DC, which meant we had to vote for republican candidates at the national level. From today's Politico.com (link to full story at bottom):

"[Independents] overwhelmingly think the country is on the wrong track and largely disapprove of President Barack Obama’s performance, and a plurality said they were voting for Republicans mostly to offer a check on the president and the Democratic majority. 'This wave was driven by independents voting for Republicans,' said GOP pollster Whit Ayres of his party’s electoral gains. 'This was an angry, protest election where people voted against the Democrats and the Obama agenda,' added Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg . . . The results illuminate what may be the most worrisome trend for Obama and Democrats in the two years since their political triumph — the flight of independent voters to the GOP."

The specific polling numbers, as reported by Politico (and taken the day of and day after the election), further tell the story:
-79% of Independents think the country is going in the wrong direction.
-Only 35% of Independents approve of Obama's job performance (60% disapprove).
-"Independents have also swung to the right on issues, favoring the GOP on economic issues, which voters cited as their top priority."
-57% of Independents favor repealing the democrat party's 2010 health care monstrosity (with only 31% opposing repeal).

But the story also makes clear that last Tuesday was not some widespread adoption of the republican party by Independents. 43% of Independents (a plurality) who supported a republican congressional candidate "said they did so to institute a check on the president and his party," rather than being predominantly motivated to vote for a republican. Yep. I know that feeling.

"And Independents, when given the choice, indicated they wanted to see both parties move to the center," rather than aligning along the ideological totem poles inhabited by the far leftists and the right-wing conservatives. And that may be the most disconcerting thing, since all I see these days are two parties who continue to move farther towards their extremes.

But that's OK, because if they govern too far out there on those extremes (see democrat party, 2009-2010), we'll just kick another slew of incumbents to the curb in the next election. We Independents are starting to get pretty damn good at that.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44875.html

Perhaps the Most Completely Laughable Suggestion Yet from the American Far Left: Let's Have a Violent Left-Wing Revolution!

That was the sentiment (links at bottom) expressed this week by left-winger MSNBC talking head Dylan Ratigan (who, by the way, gives Dylans everywhere a very bad name). Here's what this goofwad had to say:

"Are things in our country so bad that it might actually be time for a revolution? The answer obviously is yes. The only question is how to do it."

This particular segment involved Ratigan's interview with ultra-radical leftist Ted Rall, who for good measure chimed in with these brilliant words of his own: "The people have an obligation to revolt . . . The American left has been very peaceful since the early '70s, and where has it gotten us?"

Beyond the completely moronic nature of this kind of rhetoric, here's additionally why it's so hilarious: The American far left inhabits less than 20% of the American population. And they're the ones who are going to fight a revolution?! Them and what army! What are they going to do, anyway -- try to shout and insult us to death?!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/11/09/msnbc-host-dylan-ratigan-hints-violent-revolution
http://nation.foxnews.com/dylan-ratigan/2010/11/09/nbc-news-segment-calls-armed-left-wing-revolution

MSNBC Pundit Lawrence O'Donnell: "I Am a Socialist! I Live to the Extreme Left of Mere Liberals!" In All Seriousness: I Admire His Honesty & Courage.

Those statements by O'Donnell (pictured immediately above) came on Friday's "Morning Joe" program on far left-dominated broadcast news network MSNBC (link to full story at bottom). He was debating the future course of the democrat party with "progressive" blogger Glenn Greenwald, who vehemently questions whether there should be any meaningful place in the democrat party for so-called "moderate" "Blue Dogs." O'Donnell very much disagrees with Greenwald's sentiments, ranting as follows:

"Glenn, unlike you, I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals, okay? However, I know this about my country. Liberals are 20 percent of the electorate. Conservatives are 41 percent of the electorate, okay?...You can sit there and pretend that liberals should run more liberal in conservative districts. You love the loss of the Blue Dogs. The only way, the only way you have a chairman Barney Frank, there's only one way, that's by electing Blue Dogs. It's the only way. That's the only way you have a Speaker Pelosi."

O'Donnell's remarks have faced widespread criticism from the right-wingers today, but I have a completely different take that I have not read or heard anywhere else on the Net: Serious kudos to O'Donnell for being honest about who he is and having the courage to be honest about it.

One of my leading criticisms of the American far left is how its members incessantly try to hide whom they really are, hide what they really believe in, hide what they really want to accomplish, and hide the true objectives of the policies and legislation they espouse. In this regard, O'Donnell is a true breath of fresh air.

Put another way, let's get the truth out there and then debate it on its own merits! If you truly believe it would be the good and right thing for the United States to move as far down the road towards a socialist state as possible, then say that and we can debate whether that's the right course of action! If you think the ideal endgame is a single payer/government controlled health care system, then admit it and let's debate the merits!

I'm sick and tired in recent years of the American far left pussyfooting around their real beliefs and constantly trying to hide whom they really are. They will get much more respect from me and many Independents if they would just stop that foolishness (which fools no one) so that we can get down to debating whether, in fact, a far leftist America is truly the right direction for the country.

I disdain people who try to gain power disingenuously by acting like they are something they are not (see the Obama 2008 presidential campaign). Have the balls to stick up for whom you really are and what you really stand for, just once, American far left, and then we get around to debating that direction. Until then, you'll find that I and many Independents have little place for paying one ounce of attention to you.

One final thought: O'Donnell is also right on when he gets at the fact that the democrat party does itself absolutely no favors when it sacrifices and forces out its non-leftist so-called "moderates." The republican party similarly does itself no favors in such regard, but yet continues to do the very same thing.

These two parties for a number of years now have both been on a continuous track of destructively moving farther to their extremes and having little place within their ranks for anyone except loony left-wingers and deranged right-wingers. In short, these are not our fathers' or our grandfathers' democrat or GOP parties. The result is that at least 50% of the country, if not more, is not represented in any way, shape or form by either party.

This endless cycle of the further extremification (if that's a word) of the two parties can only continue for so long until a third party emerges to represent the unrepresented throngs and to replace one of the two current parties. But in what kind of sorry shape will the country be in by then? That's what I worry about on a daily basis. And I know this: More honestly by these partisans, like that exhibited by Lawrence O'Donnell on Friday, is only a good thing, and I will always welcome it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/lawrence-odonnell-calls-h_n_779909.html

In Stark Contrast to the Two Awful Presidents Discussed Yesterday: 50 Years Ago Today, JFK Was Elected the Nation's 35th President.

For this anniversary, Life Magazine has released a slew of previously unpublished JFK photos, including the one above, which shows JFK at a Country Fair grocery store in West Virginia as he campaigned in the Democratic Party (back then, it was worthy of being called the "Democratic Party") presidential primary in that state. (Link to more new photos at bottom).

JFK, whom I consider to be the last great American president, wouldn't know the far leftist-controlled democrat party of today. I frankly doubt he could stomach being a part of today's democrat party, and such party would likely not welcome him (since talking about things like promoting American exceptionalism, lowering income tax rates to grow revenues long term, and supporting a strong national defense would be sacrilege among the so-called "progressives" who run things in the democrat party these days).

Likewise, I doubt if JFK, who was certainly not a conservative, would have had any interest today in joining today's republican party, and indeed that party would have no place for him. I think JFK today would have to be an Independent and, given how difficult it is for third party candidates to make a dent in national elections, he would probably be relegated to serving as a U.S. Senator or Representative.

So I suppose it's just as well that he came along in the 1960's. I doubt if there are too many presidents in American history who -- like JFK -- could have successfully avoided the outbreak of World War III during the Cuban Missile Crisis without giving away the entire farm to the Soviet Union. The country needed him in the early 1960's, and thank God he was around. I just wish we had a few more (any) men of character and goodwill and real political leaders like JFK these days.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/11/us/gallery.large.jfk.life/?hpt=C2

I Guess Awful Presidents Have to Stick Together: George W. Bush Sings Obama’s Praises, Bashes John McCain, in His New Book.

Not that I’m some John McCain fan (I voted for neither McCain nor Obama in the 2008 election, instead voting third party), but I couldn’t help but become positively sick this weekend in reading Politico.com’s account (link to full story at bottom) of how Bush’s new book ("Decision Points") grinds his petty axe against fellow republican McCain pretty damn deep, while at the same time praising the alleged wonderful “presidential” attributes of one Barack Obama.

I for one wish Bush – whom, along with Obama, I consider to be one of the two absolute worst presidents of my lifetime (and I was alive for Jimmy Carter and part of Nixon) – would just slink back to his Dallas mansion or ranch or wherever the hell he calls home these days and just stay the hell there. I’m not really too interested in hearing his viewpoints about McCain or Obama or much of anything else. Instead, I’d prefer that he just shut the hell up and leave the American people the hell alone. He’s done enough damage.

Bush is an individual whom I’m convinced knowingly lied to us about the pretext to invade a sovereign country (Iraq) that posed little or no security threat to the United States. The cost of Bush dishonestly pursuing his great Neo-Con dream was monumental, and perhaps the country will never recover.

With the huge war price tag, Bush started us down the road of stifling national debt, which Obama has only ratcheted up like the blinded ideologue that he is. And of course, there were the human scars of the myriad dead and wounded American soldiers. They deserved a lot better, but instead they got Bush as their commander-in-chief.

I’ve been harshly criticized in the past by both fellow Independents and republican types for my view that Bush knew full well that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Do I know that with 100% certainty? No. But I do believe it very strongly.

And even if I’m wrong, the alternatives still make Bush an historically rotten president, because either (1) he had no real idea whether or not there were truly WMDs in Iraq but nonetheless used that as the excuse to invade OR (2) even if he actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq, he was still the most grossly negligent president in American history for invading a sovereign country based upon a “fact” that he had so completely and utterly WRONG.

Under any of these scenarios, Bush is one of the most incompetent and destructive presidents in American history. And to any of you far leftist loons who happen to agree with me here – you out-of-touch idiots can go **** yourselves too.

And so I say to W: You’ve done enough damage. Don’t go away writing books or making speeches or spouting your opinions about current politicians. Just go away. Really though. Do all of us Americans a huge favor, Slimeball.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44781.html

Vice President Joe Biden Seeks Anger Management Advice From Disgraced & Suspended MSNBC Pundit Keith Olbermann!

Wouldn't that be like Charlie Sheen consulting Mel Gibson on how to avoid drunken rampages and racial slurs? What advice is Olbermann going to give on that front, anyway? Perhaps: "Joe, if you find yourself enraged at some point, just give me a buzz -- I'll drop a few thousand in your campaign coffer to cheer you up!" Just another day in the life of the slimeballs.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/biden-sought-olbermanns-advice-on-anger/

"Bedtime for BOZO"?! Sarah Palin Takes a Dump on the Legacy of Ronald Reagan?Isn't That Sacrilege? And Where's the Right-Wing Outrage?

Good Grief! I'm no Reagan-worshipper (we all know that type), nor even a conservative or a republican, but even I know that the title of one of Ronald Reagan's old films is Bedtime for Bonzo (from 1951 and starring Reagan as a professor who tries to treat a chimpanzee like a human child) and that Reagan was in a whole slew of Hollywood pictures, not just Bonzo (ever heard of Knute Rockne, All American?). And so when I saw for the first time today some recent comments of Sarah Palin, I was rolling!

It seems that Palin was on Fox News last week trying to defend her celebrity-like status and her upcoming TLC reality series, "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Said Sarah:

"Wasn't Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn't he in 'Bedtime for Bonzo,' Bozo, or something? Ronald Reagan was an actor."

I repeat my question from the top: "Bozo"?! What, was Palin mixing up the Reagan film with her own reality series (if the Bozo fits...)? And doesn't it sound like Palin was completely unaware that Reagan was ever in any other film?!

But here's the thing: Those flubs are not even the part of this that you would think would rile up conservatives. First, conservatives don't like it when people focus on the fact that Reagan was an actor. Moreover, Palin's flippant comments could be read as suggesting that Reagan brought little more to politics and to the White House than his acting skills.

And sure enough, that's precisely how right-leaning Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan took Palin's comments. In Noonan's linked column, she kind of tears Palin a new one, so to speak, but in Noonan's high-brow style rather through a full frontal assault -- although Noonan does send "nincompoop" and "ignorant" blasts Palin's way (which is pretty damn direct for Noonan).

Final question: Why -- if Palin made these comments last week -- have I not heard any conservative talking heads or writers talking about them until today (and I don't even think of Noonan as necessarily being a "conservative")? I'd think the conservatives would be outraged?

Are they just too afraid of incurring the wrath of Palin's rather small but extremely devoted fanbase, or do conservatives prefer to occupy their time attacking only non-conservatives (including fellow republicans) rather than fellow conservatives (even when they disagree)? I suspect both factors are strongly at play here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594772776292394.html

Racial Insensitivity? Democrat Party Candidate and Tea Party Right-Winger Purport to"Bury the Hatchet" in Delaware.

The odd sight in the first picture above is the democrat party's Chris Coons and republican party tea partier Christine O'Donnell yuckin' it up as they claim to "bury to hatchet" following the Delaware U.S. Senate race (won by Coons). This is apparently some sort of weird Delaware political "tradition" (link to full story at bottom).

OK, so we already knew the tea party is supposed to be a bunch of racists, but the democrat party too? I mean, is this kind of ceremony really necessary or appropriate? There's nary a sports team in the country anymore (with limited exceptions) that is permitted by the Political Correctness Police to so much as have a Native American team name, but yet everyone just laughs it up at such a sight in Delaware?

I guess they felt they needed to truly "bury the hatchet" since Native Americans were violent savages who always went around hacking up people with hatchets all the time (which is obviously patently absurd and racist), and we don't want to see anything like that happen after a slimy political race? Posited another way, precisely what are they trying to express and prove here?

Or maybe it's just that it's OK to have such ceremonies in heavily democrat party states ("blue states") such as Delaware since everyone knows that true racism only exists in people who disagree with democrats? By the way, what do they do in Massachusetts following a political race -- smoke a peace pipe? How about over in Connecticut -- maybe a nice "retire the Indian giver" ceremony? Just pointing out the hypocrisy, folks, as always.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/odonnell_coons_bury_hatchet.html

HORROR: Evil Clown Reportedly Goes Bonkers in the Big Apple, Tosses News Reporter Off Halloween Parade Float...

This bizarre story reminds me of the old-school shenanigans of one Doink the Evil Wrestling Clown (pictured above). The New York Daily News reports that local TV news reporter Arthur Chi'en (pictured on left) -- for no apparent good reason -- was accosted at the Greenwich Village Halloween Parade by a "marauding clown" (link to full story at bottom).

The "costumed culprit" allegedly "clambered aboard the float" on which Chi'en was riding and fired Chi'en down to the street face-first. The clown then scurried away into the night, while Chi'en suffered serious facial injuries. "It was a free-for-all," said Chi'en.

The deranged clown apparently made good on his getaway, as cops have yet to make any arrests in the demented caper. There are also reportedly calls for the city to start posting cops on parade floats to prevent another evil clown from ever doing something like this again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/11/04/2010-11-04_hween_parade_nut_fractures_reporters_face.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE0CAFySImQ&feature=related

What Election? What Recession?Let's Party It Up in India, Baby!

I'm sure you've heard that just a few days after American voters kicked his party to the curb in historic numbers, Obama is off to India, taking what appears to be the largest presidential entourage in American history for a largely unnecessary and heavy-on-the-pleasure-and-society excursion.

The price tag is a reported $2 billion, amounting to $200 million a day. And the response from the White House and the far left? "It's not going to cost that much." What a compete joke. Check out of some of the figures for what basically amounts to Obama's latest, greatest vacation:

-3000 people will in the presidential entourage.
-800 hotel rooms and suites have been booked for said entourage.
-40 cars have been transported to India to haul said entourage around.
-34 warships are reportedly being sent along, including an aircraft carrier (again, the government has denied this, saying "not that many").
-40 aircraft and a slew of helicopters just for good measure.

If I didn't know better, I'd think King George II of England was heading up this royal waste of resources. And even if the $2 billion and $200 million/day figures are inflated, just how inflated can they be? The White House conveniently refuses to release a dollar figure. Suffice it to say that Obama is spending, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars for a trip that need not be taken and which could obviously be taken for a much smaller pricetag.

The utter gall of this monarch (errrr, man) to take such a trip just a few days after the resounding losses that his party suffered on November 2 -- losses incurred in part due to the big spending policies pursued by this administration and its minions over the past two years.

But alas, this is just the latest example of a completely out-of-touch man who has no business being the president of the United States. Along with George W. Bush, he is the worst and most ill-qualified president of my lifetime.

I've recently reflected on this question: How could this far leftist, out-of-touch, arrogant, condescending, elitist, thin-skinned shell of an individual ever possibly get re-elected in 2012? Simple answer: If the republicans put up a shitty candidate. A certain deranged right-winger from Alaska comes to mind, for example.

Unfortunately, that's likely what we're in for in 2012: An endless argument between these two rotten parties about how "our candidate isn't as bad are yours!" We have so much to look forward to.

And yes, you might inquire whether I'm being a little hard on the ol' president. But after two long years of this bullshit, I think we've earned that right.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/obama-visit-critised-for-overthetop-spending/134409-2.html
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/34-warships-sent-from-us-for-obama-visit-64459

Amazingly, I Still Get to Use My Obama/Pelosi/Reid Pictures For the Face of the Democrat Party. Works for Me.

Slimeball Harry Reid somehow held on to his Nevada Senate seat yesterday (and thus will remain Senate Majority Leader), thanks in large part to the awful quality of his deranged right-winger opponent, Sharron Angle. Additionally, even though the republicans won control of the U.S. House, all indications are that Pelosi will continue as democrat party leader (now minority leader) in the House. So it looks like two more years of getting to use my Obama/Pelosi/Reid pictures. I had lamented that I might have to retire them.

On the GOP side, we'll now have John "Party Time" Boehner and his incessant sun tan as the new House speaker and therefore as one of the top faces of the republican party. I've not been much of a fan of Boehner, and I think he's a terrible face for the republican party -- although (1) probably not as bad as the three-headed monster face of Obama/Pelosi/Reid (can you believe a poll this week found only 8% of Independents view Pelosi favorably?!) and (2) Boehner being a bad face for his party is definitely not my problem.

In closing, I'd just like to say what a nice day today is. The sun seems a little brighter, and the air a little fresher. A measure of power balance between these two awful parties has been restored in Washington DC, which makes it a great day for the United States of America. And we Independents -- the people who decide elections -- played as much of a role in that as anyone yesterday.

Postscript: I have heard some rumblings today that Pelosi could retire. We'll have to see, but I'd think that would be highly awkward given that she just won re-election in her San Francisco district yesterday. Regardless, at a minimum I'll be able to use my pictures of the notorious threesome until the end of the year, as Obama & The Dems are sure to pull some real shenanigans in the lame duck session this month and next.