I Almost Always Disagree With Obama's Left-Wing Politics, But I Do Try to Give Him Credit When I Feel It's Deserved...

From everything that I've observed and read, Obama's reaction to the disastrous Haitian earthquake, and the American response that he's led, has been very appropriate and spot on. Now, we'll continue to monitor things, of course, in the days and weeks to come. But as of right now, I say good job, Obama.

And by the way, Rush Slimebaugh, who has incessantly criticized the swift American reaction to the Haiti situation, can kiss my big round real Missourian ass. Slimebaugh's about as Missouri as a pickled beak of jayhawker. And don't even get me started tonight on Pat Robertson or Danny Glover...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14193646.htm

Obama, White House Claim "A Victory" By Cutting Another Deal Behind Closed Doors for Disparate Treatment: Some High-End Policies 2B Taxed, Others Not?

...Those aligned with special interests powerful enough to garner a deal for their high-cost health insurance policies (i.e. union members) do not get taxed for the next 8 years, but everyone else gets their high-end policy taxed for no reason other than the fact that they were NOT aligned with some powerful left-wing special interest group to which Obama will bow down. Tell me, this is "A Victory" for what? Slimey Washington politics and business-as-usual? Yeah, I guess they damn well have a point there. They were victorious on those fronts. Although, all of the back-room mystery and dealings by the Obama & The Dems on one of the most transforming and substantial pieces of legislation in American history even goes beyond the pale of mere "business as usual" in Washington. It's pure ugliness. Folks, far from a rock star or a Messiah, Obama in just one year as president has revealed indisputably what he truly is: Just another typical politician, distinguished only by how dangerous he is as a result of his own far-left leanings and willingness to answer to the radical left progressive destroyers who control his party. Scary Days. (That's correct, I'm not in much of a joking-around mood tonight).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31527.html

How Come Any Time a Natural Disaster Occurs, We Get Right-Wing & Left-Wing Goofs Comin' Out the Woodwork and Trying to Blame It on Humans?

And so it was today that we get religious right freak Pat Robertson blaming the Haitian people themselves for causing yesterday's earthquake. Robertson says that Haitians previously brokered a "pact with the devil" which has rendered them "cursed" and which caused the earthquake. And, just for good measure, Robertson observes that the earthquake -- which is estimated to have killed between 100,000 and 500,000 people -- might be a "blessing in disguise" since it will allow Haiti to be rebuilt.

Not that the far left is innocent in this type of absurd, mindless behavior. I haven't seen any of them yet try to blame Bush for the Haitian earthquake, but I wonder if that's because the "blame Bush" statute of limitations has started to run now that the old neo-con fart's been out of office for a full year. When he was in office, I can still recall some loony left-wingers blaming him for causing Hurricane Katrina to occur, not to mention him having that same causative touch when it came to tsunamis and bridge collapses as well. As I often say: The scariest thing? That it's extremists just like these ones who control the two American political parties. And some think that I'm the one whose nuts for being an Independent!

Postscript: Get a load of Robertson's decrepit old mug above! If not for his age, I'd otherwise think he must be the bastard son of a union between Alfred E. Neuman and George W. Bush. And just take a gander at those nose hairs! Those things are even scarier than Robertson's deranged comments today!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/13/2010-01-13_haitians_pact_with_the_devil_caused_earthquake_says_.html

Drunken Lout/Schoolteacher Who K-O'd Reality Star Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi of MTV's "Jersey Shore" Officially Gets His Walking Papers.

(Linked story below). You have to love the writing style of New York Post stories. They use my kinda language. Choice selections from the linked story include:

- " 'Jersey Shore' slugger to get the ax."

- "Tanked teacher . . . is being bounced."

- "Officials will soon mail Ferro his pink slip, which gives him 30 days' notice before he's technically knocked out."

- [My personal favorite]: Ferro sought "to silence Snooki with a sucker-punch right to the kisser."

- An MTV promotional video brought "scrutiny to the then-anonymous brute."

Great stuff. The only things missing that might have made this story complete would be worked-in references to "giving the business," "why you, I oughtta," "rough-housing," and the phrase "what gives." Include just two of those delicious gems, and the story would have had me at Hello.

(BTW, I am appropriately pre-judging this slimeball with my above remarks: He's already been found guilty of assault in a criminal court of law -- which begs the question: how did this bully last so long on his job as a high school teacher before said school lowered the boom? School's Got Some 'Splaining to Do, methinks).

Important Postscript: Kids -- NEVER strike a female.

http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/news/local/jersey_shore_slugger_to_get_the_tWJRaAVGCsGXauu5YoLnHL

I Like Looking at Palin as Much as the Next Dude, But I Really Don't Need to See Her on My TV Every Night.

That's my immediate reaction to the news today that FoxNews has signed up Palin to be a regular FoxNews "contributor" (i.e. political talking head who appears regularly on FoxNews shows). I think my views on Palin have been made pretty clear in this space over time. I like her on a personal level, I think she's hot, I respect her smalltown background (which the Dems viciously attacked from the moment McCain named her as his VP candidate -- see The White Grill feature in the right-hand sidebar), and I defend her when I see the radical left attacking her in mean-spirited, unfair ways.

But I seriously doubt that I could ever vote for her for president because I'm not a right-wing conservative and, moreover, I just have never been convinced that she has what it takes to be a good president. (BTW, I thought the very same of Obama, Biden and McCain (at least at his age) in last year's campaign, but I digress). And I really don't need to hear from her on a nightly basis on my television. But I guess I'll look on the bright side: Maybe she'll steal some of the airtime away from the slimey Karl Rove, whom FoxNews splashes all across its prime time lineup like whitewash on a Hannibal, Missouri picket fence.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9534370

Not So Perfect.

So much for all the talk from the University of Kansas ("KU") Fan as to whether this year's team will cap off their near-certain national title with a perfect season. That all went up in flames today at Tennessee, at the hands of a very under-manned Vol team which was swimming in its own controversies and adversities, which was running a bunch of walk-ons out there, and which only played with 6 scholarship players. Ouch. The best part? A nerdy looking walk-on named Sylar McBee plunged the absolute dagger into the Jayhawkers' hearts! And KU Fan thought this would be a walkover and would be coupled with a Missouri loss to Kansas State in order to form the perfect KU Fan weekend. They thought wrong. As for that other game, MU had it covered.

http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1675439.html

White.

I'm just reading today that females describing their bra color is apparently now all the rage on Facebook (reportedly with some connection to breast cancer awareness). In the past week, I noticed some of these odd single-word messages consisting of only a color, and I had no idea what it meant (nor did I spend any time investigating). I tend to be a bit slow on the uptake from time to time, as you might imagine. I guess that's what I get from reading nothing but political and celebrity websites all the time, not to mention only a limited amount of time each day to even go online. I need to broaden my horizons or something! But back to the bra topic: What's my current status this night? Decidedly Green.

http://chattahbox.com/technology/2010/01/10/origin-of-viral-facebook-bra-color-status-a-mystery/

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