Sheeeeeeeee-ut, NEGRO!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologizes this weekend for 2008 remarks in which he did his best Samuel L. Jackson/Pulp Fiction impersonation (link below) and referred to Obama as "light-skinned" and as having "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." First, let me say, in the whole scheme of Harry Reid's complete sliminess as a human being, particularly that which has been on display in recent vintage through the "health care reform" process, his 2008 comments referenced above register pretty low on the proverbial totem pole. Plus, unlike with his more-recent behavior, Reid has actually apologized for the 2008 remarks. So you're not going to hear me ranting about those remarks tonight.

Second, and with that being said, doesn't the "Negro" reference tend to exhibit just how completely out of touch with the country this Reid goof really is? I mean, Good Grief! In my almost four decades on the planet, the word "Negro" has never been commonly used nor considered appropriate to use. You would have to go back to at least the 1960's (before my time) to find an era where that word was in widespread and accepted use. Jeezal Peezal, even if Reid had used the word "colored," at least then he would have only been dating himself by about 35-40 years. The dude's simply out of stride with America, and apparently by a very significant measure. And this, along with radical left progressives like Pelosi, and progressive wannabes like Obama, are the folks that completely control our federal government? As I like to say, Scary Days. Very Scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paw_2EJBzFs

Should Independents Look to Attend the Tea Partiers' National Convention Next Month?No Thank you.

As commented previously in this space, I identify very little with the tea party movement. It strikes me as a predominantly far right conservative effort. It did exhibit some merit early on when it was more true grassroots, but since then the far right-wing powerbrokers have dug their little tenacles into the movement such that much of its original grassroots spirit seems to be only feigned these days. And as also previous noted here, I've yet to see any effort by the tea partiers to reach out to anyone but fellow conservatives.

With those prefatory remarks in mind, I come to the subject of this purported "National Convention" that the tea partiers are holding next month. As a preliminary matter, I must say that nothing says "grassroots" quite like the $549 per-head fee that they will charge to anyone who wants to attend. But even more noteworthy, I was reading today about the line-up of speakers, and frankly it reads like an attendee list at a Barry Goldwater birthday party. First, you have zany, nutty right-winger Sarah Palin as keynote speaker (although she is hot). Next, you have "members of the GOP's far-right flank" in Congresspersons Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn. Finally, and just for good measure, you get a few samples of those wonderfully tolerant folks known as the Religious Right -- former Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell disciple Rick Scarborough.

To me, the idea of sitting and listening to this motley crew rant all day is about as appealing as the thought of (1) sitting in on an Obama/Reid/Pelosi back-room meeting or (2) contracting a nice healthy pack of hemorrhoids -- Pick Your Poison. And so as to the question of whether Independents should pay any attention or interest to this event next month? I don't think so -- Unless a cast of characters like that described above happens to float your boat. And if it does, I got news for ya -- You ain't an Independent.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/08/are-rainmakers-crashing-the-tea-party.aspx

A Hunka Hunka Burnin' Love! The Big E Would Have Turned 75 Tomorrow.

Here's a Rager salute to Elvis Presley, one of the greatest entertainers ever known to man. The linked item documents tomorrow's occasion and also posits a poll as to the #1 Elvis Leading Lady of all-time from the Big E's various pictures. I confess to not being overly familiar with several of said ladies, so I'll go ahead and go with Sinatra's daughter by default.

http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1670139.html

Woman Goes Berserk, Goes Ape, Tosses Cash Registers, Mop Buckets & Assorted Other Items at McDonald's Crew Who Won't Refund the Price of Her Hamburger

This lady in Kansas City didn't care for the way the hamburger had been made. Hey, I'm not going to jump all over her. Certainly, she should have handled the situation more diplomatically and without the destruction of property (which is a crime). But in the famous words of the Michael Douglas character in the movie Falling Down (pictured above), haven't these McDonald's employees ever heard the phrase, "The Customer is always right"? If not, someone should remind them. If this woman didn't care for how the burger was prepared, refund her damn 90 cents already. What, are you worried about setting the dangerous precedent of ladies nationwide ordering a burger, taking a bite, and then demanding a refund!?! Please. In my book, McDonald's (which I already do not like due to the lack of healthy food choices on its menu for those of us who don't care much for eating cardboard-like-tasting "grilled chicken") is just as responsible for this ugly situation as the lady referenced above. That's right, Equally Responsible. 50-50.

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1667901.html

Obama Disregards Pledge Made 8 Times to Permit C-SPAN Coverage of Health Care Bill Negotiations: I Have a Different Take Here Than the Far Right.

I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt: When he made this pledge over and over on the campaign trail in 2008, I don't think he was lying; rather, I think he probably believed at the time that these negotiations could be on C-SPAN. So I don't really agree with all the "liar" venom coming out of the conservatives. That being said, there's plenty to criticize here. First, to make such a promise over and over, and then to do so little (basically nothing) to try to actually make it come true is just plain disingenuous. Second, to believe and then to state that belief over and over that there would be open negotiations, when in fact he should have known that his own party's leaders would throw up considerable roadblocks to that ever occurring, shows a concerning lack of judgment in the first instance -- and certainly a lot less judgment than I would expect to see from a person who is President of the United States. But was Obama knowingly lying to us? Again, I'm not going to go there on this one, first and foremost because I simply don't think it's true.

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/

Please Tell Me Something...

Why is it that if one side had committed myriad thousands of new troops to a war with no clear objective in Afghanistan, the Far Left would be out in droves, as they were in all the years preceding 2009, protesting to the hilt, but then that same Far Left goes almost completely silent when their Hero is in office and ratcheting up those troop levels to huge new expansions? I'll tell you why. Because the Far Left, and the Radical Progressives who control it, have very few if any principles to speak of. They have no character. They are no different from the Far Right and the Conservatives that control that little swath of things that they call a republican party. And in the meantime, the overwelming majority of us Americans just sit around peacefully, remain silent, and let all this B.S. occur, day after day, year after year, decade after decade. We're not represented by anyone. And Time Has Come to Change That. I ain't running for office, but at least I'm out here making my voice heard and rufflin' plenty of feathers. That's what All of You need to start doing. Express Yourselves. Until we do, things are always going to remain the same -- Two bullshit out-of-touch parties just foisting upon us any damn thing they feel like. I've been noisy, and you folks NEED TO GET NOISY TOO. There's a lot at stake. So do it.

San Fran Nan, Long Lost Cousin to Baghdad Bob, on Obama & The Dems' Health Care Bill: "There Has Never Been a More Open Process For Any Legislation"!

At the same time today, she rejects C-SPAN's request to be allowed to televise the Dems' back-room negotiations to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Is there much more to be said here than what I've already said in this space about 1,000 times before? Let's see. "Never a more open process"? And right means wrong. And left means right. And I always tell the truth, even when I lie. And I am the spitting image of Brad Pitt. And my shit truly hasn't stunk in years. Really though. Just believe me. Yawn.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74389-pelosi-responds-to-c-span-there-has-never-been-a-more-open-process

New Book: Warren Beatty Slept With 12,775 Women Over 35 Years. No Wonder Carly Simon Said He Was "So Vain"!

I'd be vain too. An upcoming biography of Beatty authored by Peter Biskind reports that Beatty slept with around 12, 775 women "give or take" over a 35-year period from around 1955 to him meeting Annette Bening (his current wife) in 1991. That basically equates to a new gal every single day over that period. I recall Hank Williams, Jr.'s famous lyric about liking "to have women I've never had," but this is ridiculous. My first thought was to wonder how Beatty's stats stack up with The Legend himself, Wilt Chamberlain. Well, I looked it up again and Wilt claimed to have bedded 20,000 different women during his life. So on first blush, you might think Beatty has some work to do. But not so fast. The Beatty biography author Biskind offers a very significant caveat to his 12,775 figure, pointing out that it does not include "daytime quickies, drive-bys, casual gropings, stolen kisses, and so on." Methinks that if one was to include some of that action, plus Beatty's pre-1955 and post-1991 liaisons, he might just be right up there in Wilt's league or perhaps even exceed it. In short, more empirical data and research are necessary.

Post-Script: I was at first embarrassed to mention that I have no earthly idea what a "drive-by" means in the sexual context. So I was a bit relieved to see that the linked LA Times blog on Beatty's conquests also apparently asks the very same question ("If anyone can offer a good definition of what might constitute a Warren Beatty 'drive-by,' we'd love to hear it."). And also for the record, while I do believe that "daytime quickies" (as I understand that phrase) should be added to and included within the Beatty tally, there's no way that you include "casual gropings" or "stolen kisses" in any credible count of sexual activities. I wanted to make my position very clear on that point.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/01/how-many-women-did-warren-beatty-really-sleep-with.html

We Don't Need Stuff Like This. Obama Hung in Effigy in Georgia. Whether the Far Right or Far Left Is Responsible, I Hope the Perpetrator Burns in Hell

If you disagree with our president, as I most often do, then the same is to be expressed in words, thoughts and ideas. Not in hate. Not in violent-tinged actions or symbols. Now, those comments are of course based upon the presupposition that this was some right-wing freak who is responsible. The probabilities are that it was such a freak. At the same time, I didn't just fall off the proverbial turnip truck over here. I realize that something like this could always be the work of the far left, aiming to create a propaganda event in favor of their ilk. Such is the very concerning world and country in which we currently live. But regardless of which extreme's person is to blame, "I'd love to spit some Beechnut in that dude's eye," as one of my favorite old songs goes. I remain true to my view that we are ultimately a nation of free ideas, debate and conversation -- from which better leaders become elected and poor ones ultimately are retired to the private sector. That's America. And regardless of what anyone else might think, and regardless of how much the two extremes might try incessantly to change that dynamic, I think that essential core value of what makes us American ain't going away any time soon.

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11759669

Gotta Love the Far Left! When Obama & The Dems' Polls Head South, They Attack the Messenger.

In the linked story, Politico.com today reports that the far left is stepping up attacks on independent pollster Scott Rasmussen for polls showing declines in support for Obama & The Dems and their policies. You have to admire the very limited playbook of the far left: (1) Anyone who disagrees with them on anything is a right-wing extremist, racist and/or nazi; (2) Any poll that shows bad public opinion numbers for their politicians or their policies is biased and flawed; and, (3) finally, dem politicians never do anything wrong or, if they do, the republicans did the same thing or worse at some point, which makes it right. Absent from said playbook, of course, is any real proof of intelligent thought or character, but instead just an incessant lack of desire or caring to address the substance or merits of issues or what the American people think about them. Or, much more simply put, it's called being out-of-touch, aloof, and drunk with power. A most dangerous combination.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31047.html

Happy New Year! I Give You Both A Resolution & A Prediction for 2010...

Resolution: Rage.

Prediction: PAIN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1TxiVhrkZA

Are AFL-CIO Guy Steve Rosenthal & Other "Progressives" Complete Idiots? Or Are They Just Completely Blind? (Same Difference?)

The linked Politico.com story describes a difference of opinion in the dem party these days as to whether the party needs to move towards the center in 2010. Some dems, such as William Daley (Clinton's commerce secretary and brother of the Chicago mayor) have recently very plainly stated that if Washington dems continue their radical left crash-course during 2010, it will be disastrous for them in the 2010 elections (and beyond). To that, I say "duh" (do people still say that?). In other words, no ****, Sherlock. Make no mistake, absent Washington dems pulling a post-2004 Bill Clinton-type dash towards the middle, they will take big hits in 2010. (Unfortunately, most of those hits will be at the hands of republicans, although I continue to hold out hope for some viable third-party Independents to emerge in upcoming election cycles -- but I digress).

In the face of comments like those of Daley (which merely speaks obvious truths), you have "progressives" like the pictured Rosenthal claiming that staying the far left course is the only way for Washington dems to avoid losses in 2010 (see linked story). Talk about livin' in Bizarro world! So I return to my question above. Are these progressives idiots? Actually, I'm not going to say that. But I will say that they are so blinded by ideology that they eschew any talk of movement to the center even in the face of clear evidence that failing to do so will be distastrous for them in upcoming elections. Because the progressives basically control the dem party these days, I'll believe it when I see it as to any sudden move towards the center. Nope, I think they are going to continue their current course in 2010 of ram-rodding more unpopular ultra-far-left legislation right down our throats. They will suffer big losses in the 2010 elections, but by then just how much damage will have already been done? And how much of it will be reversible? I think that's precisely what the radical left progressives are banking on (regardless of whether or not they suffer big losses next year). As indicated above, these people may be a lot of things, but I don't think they're idiots.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31053.html

Just in Time for New Year's: A Woman Blows a .708 BAC -- "Possibly a State Record"!

The linked story describes a 45-year-old Sturgis, South Dakota woman who earlier this month (allegedly) heisted a delivery truck, got very drunk, passed out behind the wheel, got arrested, and then blew an incredible .708 BAC. (As the story notes, a .40 is considered a lethal dose for half of the population). This was "possibly a state record," the story keenly observes. Ya think? I mean, I'd think this one probably has a place in the Guiness Book of World Records.

But that's perhaps not even the craziest part of this story. After her arrest and, obviously, her hospitalization, the woman bonds out of the hoosegaw and (allegedly) starts right back in with her antics: Two weeks later (allegedly), she boosts another stolen car, again gets wasted, again passes out behind the wheel, and the cops find her in the car in a ditch along the highway. This time, she's being held without bond. You gotta think this may be another first -- i.e. the first time ever that a person is held without bond for grand theft auto and drunk driving involving no injuries -- although you can certainly understand the reasons why.

By the way, there's no word in the story on whether this woman the second time around was able to top her prior record of .708. But stay tuned...

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_9d4a1d0e-f4d1-11de-8edf-001cc4c002e0.html

Obama's Reaction to the Attempted Xmas Terrorism: A Rant, A Criticism & A Defense...

Let me start with an overall observation. I am sick and tired of terrorism mirrowing global warming as a purely political issue in this country rather than the very serious issue that it is and one that should be treated in a non-partisan, non-ideological fashion. Every damn time an attempted terror attempt is foiled or something like the Ft. Hood Massacre occurs, we get the same tired, mindless reaction from the far left/dems and the far right/republicans: The left tries to downplay the significance of what occurred, while the right completely overplays it. Terrorism, and keeping our American citizens safe therefrom, is an issue of the most critical importance these days, and I am God Damn tired of the left and right politicizing it CONSTANTLY.

OK, that bit of ragin' being said, I'll move on to thoughts on Obama's reaction to the events of this past Christmas day. First, the fact that Obama didn't personally speak to the issue until three days after the fact, frankly, doesn't bother me that much. The American right, predictably, is jumping off of curbs over this, but who cares. If this terror attempt had been pulled off successfully, then obviously I expect to hear from Obama that very day. But that wasn't the case here. I do have a problem with Obama's minions sending out the likes of Janet Napolitano to test the waters last weekend on such talking points as "the system worked" -- which was absurd on its face. So Obama can be fairly criticized on that point, but I really don't have a criticism based on the mere fact he didn't personally speak on the thwarted terror attempt for three days. Interestingly, it appears from what I've read today that W waited something like 7 or 8 days before personally speaking to the Shoe Bomber incident (and apparently received very little, if any, criticism for the same). Now that was probably too long, but I'm not going to rant and rave about 3 days.

(BTW, the radical left progressive website Huffington Post first brought to light today (as best as I can tell) the W-Shoe-Bomber-Delay point, which Politico.com has now also picked up on. For the Huffington Post, this is classic liberal/conservative "Yeah, but look what you guys did" rhetoric. It serves to change the subject and fails to address the merits and substance of the current criticism of your own side. It also serves as a tacit admission that the current criticisms are valid. Put another way, it implies a belief that "maybe we did something wrong, but YOU GUYS DID THE SAME THING." This is one of the favorite rhetorical tools of both the far right and far left, and I just laugh in their face every time they try to use it on me since I'm not one of "You Guys." That mindless crap just falls on deaf ears with me. But I digress.)

Second, we have Obama's reference today to AbdulMutallab as an "isolated extremist." At best, this was an incredibly stupid statement. But frankly, I don't give it even that much credit. This was just another example of the sort of sickening state of affairs that the terror issue has become in this country as a result of its complete politicalization. Obama was following the typical liberal playbook of trying to downplay any attempted terrorist act that occurs, even despite overwelming evidence of this slimeball's connections to members of Al Qaeda, most particularly the mass of such sub-human creatures currently conglomerated in Yemen. There was nothing "isolated" about this, and I fear (and am almost certain) that we're going to get hit very soon with more attempts using this same modus operandi (did I spell that correctly?). Obama may well have his reasons for using a blatantly false term like "isolated" (such as a desire to give these terrorists no credit or publicity besides that which is absolutely necessary), but regardless of such reasons and how noble they may well be, when our president speaks to us about such an important issue, he needs to speak plainly and speak the truth. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough! Those are my thoughts tonight.

"I Always Tell the Truth -- Even When I Lie!"

Those, the completely contradictory and inexplicable words of movie gangster Tony "Scarface" Montana, immediately came to mind for me as we watched Obama's handpicked Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, try to put a positive spin this past weekend on the attempted destruction of a U.S. airliner by a Nigerian jihadist, only to do a complete about-face today.

First Napolitano crowed that "the system worked" -- couched in weasel words about "once the incident occurred." That was her weekend statement. Everything's Rosey! Then Monday, she admitted that "the system failed miserably" in preventing the jihadist from boarding the plane with an explosive. At the same time, she completely insults all of our intelligence by claiming that she was just "taken out of context" over the weekend, because what she was saying is that "the system" actually worked wonderfully, but only "once the incident occurred." Funny that there was no mention over the weekend how it also "failed miserably" in the first place in permitting "the incident" to occur -- a fact she was forced to admit in the face of questioning today from NBC's Matt Lauer -- a democrat party hack who had to hate having to ask Napolitan about this.

Let's get down to brass tacks: Napolitano went out there this weekend trying to put a positive spin on an almost deadly situation. There was nothing "out of context" about that. Other Obama minions were out there trying to blame Bush for "the incident" (very predictably), which itself is utterly disingenuous on its face -- If the Bush era procedures in place were so awful, then why did the Obama regime fail to ever conduct any review and overhaul of those procedures upon his taking office a full disastrous year ago?

And a final point: You'll recall this Napolitano being good for at least one utterly moronic statement per day during the early days of the Obama regime (the first few months). There's been very little of that since, because quite frankly the Obama minions have wisely and artfully kept Big Jan under wraps, with a muzzle tightly in place. But that being said, it begs the question of Obama's decision in the first instance to appoint such an incompetent to this extremely critical post in our federal government. She should have been canned in March, but yet Obama allows her to hang around. And for obvious reasons, since her firing would reflect poorly on Obama's decision in the first place -- Nevermind that this Napolitano individual is incompetent and detrimental to the country in that she heads up a vital government agency tasked with keeping us all safe. I swear, the absolute lunacy of this Obama regime is rivaled only by that of the W regime. Folks, we deserve so much better as Americans than these types of assclowns. Let's insist upon it during upcoming election cycles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqZgkM_ienQ

Hey Dems: It Was a Large Majority of AMERICA Who Said NO to Your Health Care Bill!

Politico.com reports today that dems are trying to ratchet up one of their tired old rhetorical talking points about republicans being the "party of no" (as if they're anything different when repubs are in charge), enlisting Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd -- fresh off taking his bribe in return for supporting Harry Reid's Senate dem health care bill -- to resume the "party of no" drumbeat (hit Slimeball above for story).

First and most importantly, it was a clearcut majority of the American people who said NO to this bullshit bill, as reflected in every opinion poll out there leading up to the Senate dems' Black Christmas Ram-Rod Job.

Second, and as must as I equally distrust and dislike the republicans and the "conservatives" who control them, for dems to say or to imply that repubs had no ideas in this whole debate nor anything that they wanted to be a part of this bill would be like me claiming, say, that the earth is flat or that Mississippi shithouses are actually nice places to visit. In other words, it's a load of horse shit. Republicans had plenty of ideas in this debate (some of them good ones, such as a serious focus on medical malpractice tort reform), and they were completely ignored by the dem party for no other reason than the dems completely control washington and thus (they figure) don't have to listen to anyone, since they have the ability to ram-rod massive pieces of unpopular legislation right down our throats without any need to listen to anyone but themselves (i.e. the absolute Horror of either of these two parties completely controlling the White House and the Congress).

Folks, when dems (or republicans for that matter) use one of these oft-repeated little propaganda catch-phrases like "party of no" (repubs similarly like to use such phrases as "party of traditional values" to trumpet themselves) -- pay not one ounce of attention. It's bullshit aimed at the most ignorant, lowest common denominator type-person in our society (i.e. the sort of person who actually pays attention to and is persuaded by television political ads). Think for yourselves, for cryin' out loud! And never trust either one of these two parties any farther than you can throw 'em. A lifetime of keeping my eyes wide open has informed this viewpoint.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30983.html

Politco.com: "Middle Ground Crumbles in Health Care Debate." Well, Nuts to That!

Never before in American history has such a massive restructuring of our economy passed on a purely party-line vote in the Senate. That right there is all you need to know that Obama & The Dems' health care "reform" legislation is bad legislation. It's a massive monstrosity of a bill that hardly anyone -- including the lawmakers who voted to pass it -- have fully read or digested. It was crafted in Capitol backrooms by Harry Reid and his minions. It's also widely unpopular in polling of the American people. I think these were very Dark Days when House dems, and just now, Senate dems, ram-rodded this mess right on through. If this was a good piece of legislation, likely to have a positive effect on the country, then history tells us that it would not have been rammed through on a strictly party-line basis and it would have at least something approaching 50-50 support amongst the American people.

If the damn republicans would have rammed through some massive piece of conservative legislation under the same circumstances, I would feel exactly the same. Trust me, I ain't runnin' out to join those freaks either. As seen during the W years, they are almost or perhaps just as dangerous to the country (see the Iraq war, huge deficit spending, etc.) as the radical progressive-controlled dem party. Both of these two sides represent little swaths of the country and do not represent me or you in any way, shape or form. Just as the radical progressive-controlled democrat party can kiss my ass, so too can the "tea partiers," and the conservatives, and the whole damn republican party. I don't trust any of them. Tell me something, do you?

Those of us who (1) look at the issues independently and (2) have the desire to speak out about it, will continue to try to hound these two bullshit extremes and two bullshit parties to the edge of hell. If you folks thought I was ragin' in 2009, just wait til ya get a load of me in 2010. The passage of this bullshit health care bill has only energized me, only reinvigorated me, and only made me angrier. Should be a fun new year!!!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30957.html

BLACK CHRISTMAS

With no one in the country paying a bit of attention since it's Christmas Eve: This morning Senate dems ram-rodded through a massive and widely unpopular health care "reform" bill -- the single biggest and most substantial piece of legislation since the Social Security Act of 1965 -- on a straight party-line vote. No one has had any chance to read or fully digest what's even in the Senate bill. Its passage clears the way for a merged Senate/House bill to head to the president's desk in January. It truly is a very Black Christmas. And one that I won't soon forget. It marks the day when I question for the first time in 40 years just how democratic of a nation this really is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

"Bad Santa" Was "Packing Something More Than Gifts."

A story today out of Tennessee: The Santa (pictured above) knocks over a bank and then makes his getaway -- not in a sleigh, mind you, but in a gray mid-size car. The story makes clear that this wasn't the real Santa Claus, but rather an imposter. (However, since the perp was sporting dark shades, and since he did utilize a bona fide "Santa-style sack," how can we really know for sure?)

"I don't remember a Santa doing that," said the police. Great point. This guy threatens to give Santas everywhere a bad name. Although, the story does point out that this wasn't the first time a demented Santa has reared its ugly beard. The story says that criminals "mimicking Kris Kringle" have pulled bank jobs in the past, with the most infamous being "The Santa Claus Bank Robbery" of 1927 in which a fake Santa "and his crew" (elves? reindeer?) killed and injured several people in Texas.

Finally, the story encourages you -- if you have seen this Bad Santa -- to call Crime Stoppers. OK, I'll keep an eye out. No comment from the FBI on this whole situation, by the way.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091223/NEWS03/912230395/1009/news02/Bad+Santa+robs+bank++flees+with+bag+full+of+cash

Alabama Congressman Switches Parties, Goes Republican.

Representative Parker Griffith from Alabama announces today that he's switchin' from the dems to the republicans (link below). Which makes him a pathetic turncoat. I've expressed this many times in this space: If you chose to align yourself with either one of these two bullshit parties who represent minority swaths of the country, then at least have character enough to stick with your decision through thick and thin. If there is anything I detest more than a slimey partisan liberal or conservative, it's a turncoat. Colin Powell, a career turncoat himself, is probably the worst example. Arlen Specter right behind.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

Never Before Have I Seen Such a Destructive & Un-Democratic Act in America As That Currently Being Perpetrated by Washington Dems.

Senate dems are moving toward a 9 p.m. Christmas Eve passage of the Harry Reid health care bill. Reid has just added a massive "manager's" amendment to the bill, which incorporates the various back-room deals (i.e. bribes and extortions) necessary for him to get 60 Senate dems to vote for his monstrosity of a health care "reform" bill. (The myriad problems and dangers of this bill were very well detailed today on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page (link below)). No one will have a chance to fully digest this amendment before the bill is voted upon Thursday night. Nope -- The dems are just gonna ram this gargantuan piece of legislation right down our throats. And it will likely be very close to what they give Obama to sign because too many subsequent changes, based on the House dems' version of this bill, will threaten to upset the apple cart (i.e. the 60 Senate ass-clowns, including Joe Lieberman, who support this piece of crap legislation).

Never before in American history has such a sweeping piece of legislation (which will seize one-seventh of the American economy) been enacted on a purely party-line vote with no bipartisanship whatsoever. Never before in American history has a bill this significant been jammed through and into law without virtually anyone who voted for it having had an opportunity to fully read and digest it first. Never before in American history has a bill this historical been snuck through on Sunday post-midnight procedural votes and Christmas Eve night passage votes in order to limit the publicity with respect to legislation that a majority of Americans opposes.

If you've taken a look at this space a time or two before, you'll know that I enjoy going off on both extremes and both parties. But I cannot recall an instance in my life previously where one particular act of one of these parties threatened to ensure that I will never be able to give that party any benefit of the doubt, any trust or any support ever again. The dems came very close when they ram-rodded the Cap'n Trade through the House earlier this year after adding 300 pages of new amendments to the bill earlier that morning. And I think that for me, the proverbial "last straw" probably falls right around Christmas Eve 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html

State of Kansas to Consider, and In My Opinion Should Approve, an Abolishment of the Death Penalty.

(Story linked below). Kansas (and every other state) should abolish the death penalty not because it's cruel and unusual punishment (it's not) nor on the basis that the State has no right to take the life of a first degree murderer (because the State has every such right). The reason the dealth penalty must be abolished is because every now and then, although admittedly not very often, an innocent person is put to death. To me, that is intolerable in any civilized modern society, and should be considered intolerable in what I consider to be greatest nation our world has ever seen (at least, it's the nation that I would more want to live in that any other in history). Are there compelling justifications for the death penalty? Certainly. Chief among them is the principle of retribution, i.e. if you take another's life in the first degree, then you deserve to have your own life taken. Not among them is a policy of deterrence, which has never been established through any consistent empirical data. And let me be clear: The typical liberal complaints with the death penalty, such as assertions that it's wrong to take a murderer's life, are not ones with which I agree, except for the one stated above -- It is inexcusable in any enlightened society for a legal mechanism to be in place that at times results in innocent men and women being killed. That's the bottom line. It's a price to which I will never be able to agree when it comes to the death penalty.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/1639799.html

More Chickenshit Stuff From Washington Dems.

Senate dems announced today they now have the votes needed to pass the Senate (Harry Reid) version of a health care bill that we haven't been allowed to read, while Obama predictably offered profuse congratulations on such a truly inspiring and wonderful feat. Apparently also it's anticipated that there will be a key procedural vote on the bill sometime after midnight tomorrow night (I'm not making this stuff up), followed by a vote on passage of the bill likely on Christmas Eve. As I've said before, if I was a lawmaker and wanted to pass a bill that the majority of the country opposes without anyone being able to read or digest it first, I would rely on and utilize after-midnight and Christmas Eve votes as well. So it is when you have either one of these two bullshit parties completely controlling the federal government. They become completely out of control and don't give a rat's ass what We The People think about much of anything. It's a sad, and scary, situation these days in Washington.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/18/nelson-cites-real-progress-health-care-talks/

Obama Threatens Dem Congressman: "Don't Think We're Not Keeping Score, Brother!" How Nice.

Reportedly, that was Obama's recent threat to dem congressman Peter DeFazio (see link below), who has bucked his fellow "progressives" on certain issues this year, such as the Cap'n Trade and "stimulus" bills. In other words, toe the party line, regardless of what you might think about a particular piece of legislation, or there will be real political consequences for you. So very nice, so very Presidential, so very intellectual, and, apparently, so very Obama. BTW, Obama, just because you're the first true liberal to be elected president since LBJ, and just because your White House has shown a certain propensity to act in ways in which the Nixon White House acted, that doesn't mean you have to go around acting like those two all the time. Pathetic stuff.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/72889-pelosi-rahm-do-not-scare-rep-defazio