CHICKEN AND WAFFLES

In the past, I have suggested that the president is a wuss-and quite frankly, his foreign image was pretty much Mr. Stepinfetchit-so is any country on the map concerned about a threat of action from a lame duck known for his INaction?

And isn't it funny how his tune has changed in so short a time?

THEN...

...AND NOW

President Barack Obama on Thursday vowed to "take action" against Russia for the country's alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

"I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action," 

Obama said in an interview that aired Friday on NPR. "And we will – at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."

The comments are Obama's most candid yet on the issue, which gained momentum after Republican candidate Donald Trump won the presidency last month. Intelligence officials believe high-ranking Russian officials were involved in hacks into the private email of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's adviser, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee.

Authorities have not provided any evidence publicly to support the allegation and Russian officials have denied any involvement in the attacks.

Obama told NPR that he has ordered intelligence officials to review the cyberattacks and that he hopes to have a definitive White House report on the intrusions completed and released before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.

The president-elect has consistently slammed the reports as partisan and fictitious...

...which is pretty much how the President was slamming them two short months ago!

I'd advise the soon-to-be Mr. Obama to stop whining, but that's pretty much all he has done for eight years anyway...

...and if something works, stick with it!

LOVE IN ACTION

More about the love our fellow Americans show to one another...

A Memphis woman was attacked at a Kroger grocery store by a man who said she was taking too long, police said.

The Memphis Police Department said Megan Wilson-Haislip was paying for her groceries with coupons at the store when the suspect became angry, police said.

Video of the assault was later released by Memphis police.

The MPD said the man got upset and started yelling at her her because she was holding up the line.

When she tried to leave, the suspect grabbed the woman by the back of her head and slammed her into the grocery cart.

"It wasn't like it was much," Wilson-Haislip said. "He just didn't want to wait."

The suspect fled in a blue Ford F150.

Police are reviewing surveillance cameras inside the store.

If anyone can identify the individual, they are asked to contact the Tillman Station General Investigation Bureau at 901-636-3214

You can't stop love in action...or is that love inaction?

But seriously-since I think we can all agree that president-elect Trump is obviously to blame for this-you gotta stop these people (and by "these people" I mean coupon shoppers) before things get out of hand.

Next, she'll want to pay by check.

OH CHRISTMAS TREE

An Indiana town was sued for a Christmas tree display.

According to WXIN, Joseph Tompkins, a resident of Knightstown, Indiana, enlisted the help of the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the town after it topped a public Christmas tree display with a cross instead of a star. The lawsuit claimed the topper was a violation of the First Amendment because it blurred the lines between separation of church and state.

"The cross is the best known symbol of Christianity and Knightstown's prominent display of this symbol represents an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution," the complaint said.

The lawsuit demanded that the town compensate Tompkins for being "forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact with the cross display" every day. Tompkins said he objected "to any of his tax dollars going to pay for the erection or maintenance of the display or the lighting of it," according to court documents.

But residents of the town opposed Tompkins' argument.

"Just because one person's offended, doesn't mean they have to take away one particular thing," resident Cynthia Sturgill told WXIN.

Other residents disagreed with Tompkins' claim and said that the display wasn't religious.

"To me, it's not a religious display," Sturgill told WXIN. "It's not all about just Christianity. It's about memorial, loss of family, loved ones, the veterans."

To combat the lawsuit, Knightstown resident Patricia Hutson crafted more than 200 wooden crosses to hand out for free to send a message. People also put crosses in their yards, stores, windows and cars, according to WXIN.

"I just thought we should rebel some way or let him know how we feel," Hutson told WXIN. "I hope they make people realize that we should speak up for what we believe in and stand up for it and not be pushed around."

A group gathered Sunday night to express support for the cross-topped tree Sunday night.

Monday morning, a Facebook page for the town announced the cross had been taken down.

"It is with regret and sadness that the Knightstown Town Council has had the cross removed from the Christmas tree on the town square and is expected to approve a resolution at the next council meeting stating they will not return the cross to the tree," the council said in a Facebook post."

Tompkins told WXIN he wasn't offended by the cross, but rather valued upholding the First Amendment.

Let me raise my hand to Tompkins, and both hands to the ACLU.

Here's why.

If his lawsuit was based soley on his (very common) misinterpretation of the first amendment, why is he not opposed to the tree?

A CHRISTmas tree is ALL ABOUT CHRISTianity....that's why it is called CHRISTmas. 

A couple of millennia ago, there was This Guy named CHRIST (no disrespect intended, Lord, please remember that I am trying to get through to an imbecile). 

CHRISTmas is the commemoration of His birthday, and CHRISTianity is the label assigned to the various religions that worship Him.

Clear enough for ya, Joey?

Also, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Seems to me that Congress did not make the display, so where is the violation? 

I do not see where it says anything about what the Knightstown Town Council is allowed to do.

It also seems to me (and to some wiser than me) that what this amendment means is that Congress cannot implement a national religion. 

Remember, many of the initial European settlers of this continent resented what King Henry did with the Church of England and settled the colonies for the freedom to practice religion as they liked.

Which includes putting a cross on top of a tree if they feel like it.

Finally, do you see the words "separation of church and state" in the amendment, or, for that matter ANYWHERE in the Constitution?

Wanna know why?

They're NOT IN THERE!

Read a book called "Original Intent" by David Barton if you'd like to know more about this common misconception.

So, Joey, you are misinformed, uninformed and full of ka-ka. 

And I salute you with my middle finger as the frigging moron you are.

I hope your neighbors decorate your house with crosses and hold prayer vigils on the sidewalk in front of your home.

But most of all, I hope that by next Christmas, you have a freaking life.