Ho-Ho-Hobama the Santa Bandit

409587290v10_225x225_Front_padToSquare-trueState Police in Pennsylvania are asking for the public’s help in identifying a suspect who robbed a bank in Chadds Ford Township dressed like Santa Claus.  According to police, investigators are seeking a white male, wearing black sweatpants and sweatshirt and a fake grey “Santa Claus” beard.

Santa Claus is the iconic symbol of giving. An ebullient St. Nick spends all year crafting gifts in the North Pole, and then generously loads up the sleigh on Christmas Eve setting out on a global mission to disperse gifts to good boys and girls the world over.

Santa Claus caught on camera a robbing bank is a sure sign the world is in a downward spiral. And why not, ‘Baby face’ Nelson wannabes rejecting clown masks and donning Santa suits represents the present political climate in America.  It was role model, Barack Obama who promoted himself as Santa Claus and then after moving into the White House, whipped off the red Santa suit and transformed into famous bank robber Willie Sutton.

Obama is gracious, well mannered and gentlemanly and an “innovative robber” like Sutton who was renowned for being polite while performing armed robbery.  “One victim said witnessing one of Sutton’s robberies was like being at the movies, except the usher had a gun. When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton simply replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”

For a year orchestrated by a robber pretending to be an usher the nation has been in the midst of an uninterrupted stick up.  Like a movie, Americans have been reduced to spectators observing a burglary by a calm, pleasant bandit finessing money from hard working people, small businesses and the federal budget with such polish and coordination that grand larceny resembles a Radio City Music Hall Christmas Show.

Committing nationwide theft, while pretending to be Santa Claus, is downright blasphemous. If Obama were honest he’d ditch the Santa suit and slip on a pair of green Robin Hood tights. Dressing like Santa, as a precursor to theft, is as bad as a disguising a duck hunter as St. Francis of Assisi or an abortion clinic worker in a Mother Theresa-style sari.

Like Willie Sutton before him, Santa Claus Bandit Barack and his merry band of elves go where the “money is.” Though undeniably a heist, Obama justifies blatant thievery by redistributing stolen possessions from those who earned them to those who didn’t. Donning a Santa outfit the message Obama sends is: This year, children who deserve coal in Christmas stockings will be given brightly wrapped presents and hardworking children get nothing but coal.

In addition to sliding notes to tellers that say, “Scream and I’ll shoot,” Obama also drives the getaway car. Yet, clueless victims affectionately continue to cheer the brigand on.  Some misguided Americans still support a crook while liberal ideology holds economic, social and political futures ransom. A President pretending to be Father Christmas holds the barrel of a policy gun to America’s head demanding pockets be emptied into a socialistic attaché case held open by the person who swore to protect Constitutional rights to private property.

Replete with night goggles and a calculator Obama, in an effort to promote fairness, has spent many years carefully scoping out flourishing citizens to pinch.  Targeting specific economic stratums the Santa Bandit, with “a wink of his eye and a twist of his head” through political maneuvers imposes nothing but dread. Barack Obama issues a disingenuous holiday Christmas message to the nation that the Commander-in-Chief now claims the right to pilfer private property and describe it as giving.

Masquerading as Santa Claus all during the Presidential campaign, Barry Sotoero pledged to deliver a wish list. Crafty candidate Obama told the nation what it wanted to hear promising Christmas morning in America. Duped by Santa Bandit’s empty rhetoric, voters left the ballot booth on Election Day with “visions of sugar-plums dancing in their heads,” unaware that Obama, once in the White House, had alternate plans. Santa Bandit Barack premeditated delivering ill-gotten gains to folks deemed less fortunate from a sleigh filled to overflowing with goods stolen from those who merely anticipated a future filled with Presidential hope and change.

Obama’s socialist intent has always been to shimmy down America’s corporate chimney and initially a majority welcomed the visit. However just a few months after the election more and more Americans clearly began to recognize an imposter was hiding under the fake Santa beard. What Obama fails to realize is that Americans can spot Marxists from miles away, especially when draped in red.

Substituting “ho-ho-ho” with “hands-up,” Obama spent the past year scarfing down chocolate chip cookies and glugging down every drop of hot cocoa leaving not one stray crumb behind for America’s children or even generations of children yet unborn. As trusting tax-payers lay all snug in bed, instead of checking off the electorate’s Christmas list, fake Santa Barack spent the past year attempting to stuff personal property, freedom and independence into oversized legislative duffel bags in hopes of dragging the plunder to a government equivalent of the North Pole.

So, “Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus.” However, the only surprise in the empty stocking hanging on the mantle this Christmas morning is the harsh realization that Barack Obama is nothing more than a charlatan.  The President of the United States is a counterfeit Santa, sticking-up the nation like a bank under siege in Chadds Ford Township, Pennsylvania, dressed up and hiding behind a cheap, grey beard.


  1. Pingback: Palin Twibe

  2. Pete

    I’d like a clarification. I have heard a lot of people call Obama a marxist. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and you don’t seem crazy or ill-informed, so what exactly do you mean by “marxist” in this context.


  3. jeannieology


    Thanks for leaving such a respectful nice comment and question I admire your intellectual honesty and curiosity.



    You may not agree with any of this and that is fine — debate and intellectual discussion are always welcome here while rude ignorance is not.

    Any time feel free to ask me why I say anything at all.

  4. Pete

    Thanks. If Obama were a marxist wouldn’t he have tried to nationalize the banks when he had the chance? If ever there were an opportunity to do so given the vast incompetence displayed by Wall Street recently, this was it. Yet he didn’t even up their regulation much. And would a Marxist really be listening to Larry Summers? Seems about as unplausible a theory as I can think of. Analogous to calling Bush a fascist which is an equally unsupportable hypothesis in my opinion.

  5. Pete

    Note your first link makes the argument that Obama knows marxists, that means he might be a marxist. I think for this argument to have traction, I would think he would have leftists on his economics team, when in fact his team is overall right of the Democratic party. People like Krugman (leftist, not marxist) are excluded.

    A similar argument could be made for Bush being a racist and a John Bircher, when in fast he is far from either. But he has many associates that are one or the other– such is inevitable for a politician.

  6. The problem is that so many Marxist ideas have been co-opted into liberal ideology that they are not recognized for what they are.

    Obama certainly seems shaped more by Marxist thought than Capitalist American ideals. Wealth redistribution, his ideas on religion, and an open hostility towards business seem to indicate a person who shares more in common with socialists than capitalists.

    Anyone who would call bush a fascist, doesn’t understand fascism for the left wing ideology that it is. American liberalism as it exists today is the closest thing to fascism since Der Fuhrer and Il Duce themselves. Not by implication like your Obama and Bush examples Pete, but by deeds.

  7. Pete

    Could you give an example of Marxists in the US that are taken seriously? I really can’t name one. Same for Fascists. Could you give me an example of Obama’s open hostility toward business? I work in the private sector and I think Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have been openly friendly toward businesses at least in my industry. Bush 2 in fact was perhaps the least friendly because he let monopolies build too much, but he was still overall friendly. As for wealth redistribution, we have seen an accumulation of wealth at the top, and I haven’t seen any serious effort by Obama to stop that– could you please be more specific in your claim? Thanks, and Merry Christmas.

  8. Pete

    On the subject of wealth redistribution, as I have gotten wealthier, my overall federal tax rate has gone from about 30% to around 20% as more of my income has shifted to capital gains. Now capital gains really should be indexed of course so the “real” tax rate is probably closer to 30% than 20% but I am pretty sure the tax rate has gone down. My payroll tax rate has gone down as well because I am over the SS cap. My state tax rate has actually gone up a little as I have become wealthier due to itemization caps.

    Note that I haven’t really liked a president since Bush 1. I just am surprised at the labels thrown around in these debates and am trying to get insight into what people are thinking. I think William F Buckley would be appalled by the use of the marxism label were he around today.

  9. jeannieology

    I hate to keep putting links but Digital is correct. The left has become so “Marxist” many don’t even recognize what they are seeing anymore.


    Obama is motivated by his own idea of social justice which is what motivated Marx…unrestrained capitalism vs the humanitarianism of redistributing wealth from the haves to the have nots.

    For Marx private property was not good–and tried to foster alienation to the concept. Obama is working to make it hard to attain private property and for those who have it he is making it difficult to keep.

    Obama’s emphasis like Marx’s was social and economic and addressing those issues will bring redistributive change.

    Demonizing the business class as evil and lionizing the working class and stressing selfishness of one rather than the interdependency of both classes for economic strength and growth.

    Obama is attempting through policies to whittle away the class system. To force or foster a one class nation where the rich are subjugated to give up private property to the underclass.

    Government control over things like mortgages, banks, auto industry and the big magilla health care is government inching its way toward controlling the means of production and in turn ushering in socialism — whose basis and foundation was birthed in Marxism.

    Pete…thank you again for your thoughtful, intelligent questions and debate.

    You are welcome here anytime.

  10. Pete

    Thanks for the link. I don’t find the five of the seven points I know something about very convincing. The first one and the college loans I will have to look into. On GM I am a stockholder and followed the issue closely. If GM had been allowed to go bankrupt in a normal way, indeed the bondholders would have been paid first, but that probably would have been zero. But it is not the case that legally the bondholders are always paid first. Sometimes they aren’t. And the feds said they would bail out the deal but that stockholders such as myself would not be wiped out– just close to it. Now if the feds take over GM permanently the guy might have a point. Until then it doesn’t seem like a strong argument. Note the Japanese took over Toyota in the 60s rather than let it go belly up and then the de-nationalized it later. Hardly Marxist. Keynesian sure. Not Marxist.

    I have a challenge for you. A hypothesis such as “Obama is a Marxist” should imply some predictions. Here are some: he will nationalize the banking industry (no more private banks) and he will make GM a permanent state car company. What I mean is that for the hypothesis to have meaning, it should have predictive value, and when the predictions do or don’t come true, then the hypothesis should or should not be abandoned.

  11. One need look no further than the stimulus program which was fat with programs run or funded by the government and sans Tax incentives or anything to encourage investment in business and private job creation. For Obama, it’s all about government spending, regulation and control.

    This is exemplified by his radical environmental agenda which lead him to make this statement or thinly veiled threat, you be the judge:

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

    Denying the production of cheap fuel doesn’t just hurt the energy producing companies. It harms all who rely on inexpensive power to do business and that means everyone. This is particularly egregious in my opinion given the specious nature of the anthropogenic climate change issue in general.

  12. Pete

    Getting rid of coal hardly seems radical provided nuclear is on the table. I personally would ban coal power for cities without good air circulation such as Salt Lake City. And for a claim as serious as his being a Marxist, you really need to do better than an environmental agenda that would be considered moderate in countries such as Japan and Germany– hardly Marxist countries.

  13. Pete

    Thanks– read the article. It seems very black and white and un-nuanced which sounds more like a philosophy than an empirical economic policy. If the government spending money on anything other than defense makes us “socialist” then clearly our public school system means our country has been doomed for 100 years. Time to move, uh, where? I can only think of one country that is entirely capitalist (Somalia) and only one that is entirely socialist (Cuba). Neither seems particularly attractive. I like calling 911 and having the cops come, and I like the fact that we give aspiring military leader a free education at west point. I would love for us to adopt Singapore’s healthcare system. Does that make me a marxist? Hardly. And it is not true that Friedman was right and Keynes was wrong. They both had many good and bad ideas, and were brilliant men, and were he alive today Friedman would have face-planted on the recent crash while Keynes would be unsurprised. Keynes similarly would have been schooled by Friedman on monetary policy. And some of their beliefs just haven’t been vetted one way or the other yet.

    Also as to the Chinese abandoning things we are adopting, their stimulous package as a percentage of GNP is much bigger than ours. That is not to say either policy is good. Time will tell. If you are 100% certain of how a given policy will turn out, then I suggest that faith belongs in the church and not in economics.

  14. jeannieology

    I’m convinced…as far as I’m concerned in my eyes Obama is nothing more than a free market, Capitalist that works on behalf of the Constitutional right to private property – Obama is so ‘right’ he makes Reagan look like a socialist.

    Sigh! means some arguments are just not worth having.

    But like I said, you are very polite quite unlike the yahoo who suggested last evening that my children should slit my throat and bleed me out like a pig! My question to you Pete, not that you would ever engage in such ignorance, why do some liberals stoop to arguing politics by making such stupid comments?

  15. LOL, no what you have offered is your opinion, I have offered evidence, While you have spun arguements. Nowhere did I suggest that government should have no roll in American life, your example of public education is silly. I am suggesting that government needs to takes its hands off of free enterprise and operate in a limited capacity in the lives of the citizenry as it was meant to in America, not Somalia or China.

    “If the government spending money on anything other than defense makes us “socialist” then clearly our public school system means our country has been doomed for 100 years.”

    This is a non sequitur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top