The Suicidal Leap of Tyler Clemente
. . . Homosexual activists will no doubt use the death of Tyler Clemente to excoriate so-called homophobes for having caused his death. However, the proximate cause of Tyler’s suicide was his Rutgers’ dorm roommate, Dharun Ravi, and an accomplice, Molly Wei, grossly violating his privacy. They illicitly videotaped and posted to the internet Tyler’s two homosexual encounters at Rutgers within 3 days.
If blame need be assigned, Tyler Clemente would have to be blamed for taking his own life although, no matter the societal and family shame associated with homosexuality, Tyler had to have had other psychological issues to induce him to end his life at 18, issues of self-esteem, perhaps, that led him to a gay life.
As trite as it is, suicide is a needless, permanent solution for what is most often a temporary problem.
Again, if blame need be assigned, two medical groups could also be seen as responsible parties.
Until gay agitators began pressuring the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association in 1973 to cease describing homosexuality as a sickness, as “an abnormal mental disorder” and homosexuals as “sexual deviants,” that disorder was considered treatable. Once the two APA’s were intimidated into abandoning that long-standing diagnosis, a deviant disorder gradually and unfortunately morphed into a variation on the norm.
What was a politically motivated alteration of a medical diagnosis may have sated the demands of gay agitators and convinced untold numbers of gays that there was nothing wrong with them but did nothing to alleviate the evident anguish of people like Tyler Clemente. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2033)
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!
Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!
Back in the old days, circa 1971 A.D., Don Imus, pre-WFAN and pre- his “nappy-headed ho’s” scandal, had a song-shtick on his morning radio show which featured the “Reverend Billy Saul Hargis,” pastor of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship.
In part, the lyrics were, “Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes/Long as I have my plastic Jesus/Riding on the dashboard of my car./ I can go a hundred miles an hour/Long as I got the almighty power/Glued up there by my pair of fuzzy dice.”
As irreverent as those lyrics were, our president may have outdone them in irreverence. He’s glued his plastic Jesus up there next to his framed picture of himself.
The same man who proclaimed to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation seems to have experienced a Christian epiphany comparable to that of Saul of Tarsus. Okay, Obama wasn’t knocked off his high horse and wasn’t blinded by a light but he must have had a startling epiphany nevertheless since he finally “got religion,” and the Christian religion at that!
Not one to often darken the doorways of churches since he tossed his pastor of 20 years under a Greyhound, along with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has finally cleared the festering air as to whether he is a Muslim or a Christian: “President Obama took the issue of his faith head on Tuesday, telling residents in New Mexico that he is a ‘Christian by choice’ who came to religion later in life after being inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Now, is that a heartfelt, sincere profession of Christian faith or what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2029)
Back in the old days, circa 1971 A.D., Don Imus, pre-WFAN and pre- his “nappy-headed ho’s” scandal, had a song-shtick on his morning radio show which featured the “Reverend Billy Saul Hargis,” pastor of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship.
In part, the lyrics were, “Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes/Long as I have my plastic Jesus/Riding on the dashboard of my car./ I can go a hundred miles an hour/Long as I got the almighty power/Glued up there by my pair of fuzzy dice.”
As irreverent as those lyrics were, our president may have outdone them in irreverence. He’s glued his plastic Jesus up there next to his framed picture of himself.
The same man who proclaimed to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation seems to have experienced a Christian epiphany comparable to that of Saul of Tarsus. Okay, Obama wasn’t knocked off his high horse and wasn’t blinded by a light but he must have had a startling epiphany nevertheless since he finally “got religion,” and the Christian religion at that!
Not one to often darken the doorways of churches since he tossed his pastor of 20 years under a Greyhound, along with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has finally cleared the festering air as to whether he is a Muslim or a Christian: “President Obama took the issue of his faith head on Tuesday, telling residents in New Mexico that he is a ‘Christian by choice’ who came to religion later in life after being inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Now, is that a heartfelt, sincere profession of Christian faith or what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2029)
Are We Better Off Today than We Were Two Years Ago?
Are We Better Off Today than We Were Two Years Ago?
The Great Communicator, the nation’s last true conservative president, Ronaldus Magnus, Ronald Wilson Reagan, won the election of 1980 against Jimmy Carter in large part because he asked the nation a probing question in their last televised debate.
Reagan posed the question that cut to the essence of what Carter thought was the electorate’s malaise: ”Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
As Kyle-Anne Shiver recounts, ”That simple Reagan question reached right into my heart of hearts and transformed me from a poppycock-believing, hippie liberal to patriotic conservative in one fell swoop.”
Indeed, it was one helluva question, one which Shiver suggests should be asked over and over by Republican House and Senate candidates during these last few weeks before Election Day.
As Shiver wrote on PajamasMedia.com, ”I would start putting that same slogan on every billboard and on every post in every town square in America. I would print millions of those ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’ posters for folks to put in their front yards. I would make a gazillion bumper stickers and T-shirts and coffee mugs and I would open every single speech on the campaign trail with that question: ” http://tiny.cc/fazc1
It was a question that energized the Reagan faithful, the Reagan Democrats, and the electorate as a whole to cast their votes for a former actor and governor, the nouveau leader of the conservative movement since most people didn’t feel they were better off.
That momentous election led to a landslide four years later, to eight years of almost unprecedented economic growth, a rebuilding of our national defense forces, and of regaining our position in the world. Most importantly it led to a much-needed revival of American pride and spirit when we could once again envision our destiny as that shining city on the hill, that beacon of hope for all the world to see and emulate.
To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims commercial, “We’ve come a long way, Baby” in the 21 years since Reagan left office but not along the right way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2017)
The Great Communicator, the nation’s last true conservative president, Ronaldus Magnus, Ronald Wilson Reagan, won the election of 1980 against Jimmy Carter in large part because he asked the nation a probing question in their last televised debate.
Reagan posed the question that cut to the essence of what Carter thought was the electorate’s malaise: ”Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
As Kyle-Anne Shiver recounts, ”That simple Reagan question reached right into my heart of hearts and transformed me from a poppycock-believing, hippie liberal to patriotic conservative in one fell swoop.”
Indeed, it was one helluva question, one which Shiver suggests should be asked over and over by Republican House and Senate candidates during these last few weeks before Election Day.
As Shiver wrote on PajamasMedia.com, ”I would start putting that same slogan on every billboard and on every post in every town square in America. I would print millions of those ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’ posters for folks to put in their front yards. I would make a gazillion bumper stickers and T-shirts and coffee mugs and I would open every single speech on the campaign trail with that question: ” http://tiny.cc/fazc1
It was a question that energized the Reagan faithful, the Reagan Democrats, and the electorate as a whole to cast their votes for a former actor and governor, the nouveau leader of the conservative movement since most people didn’t feel they were better off.
That momentous election led to a landslide four years later, to eight years of almost unprecedented economic growth, a rebuilding of our national defense forces, and of regaining our position in the world. Most importantly it led to a much-needed revival of American pride and spirit when we could once again envision our destiny as that shining city on the hill, that beacon of hope for all the world to see and emulate.
To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims commercial, “We’ve come a long way, Baby” in the 21 years since Reagan left office but not along the right way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2017)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
School Bullying, Gays, and Asher Brown
School Bullying, Gays, and Asher Brown
School bullying is as indefensible as school cheating, and as common.
Bullying, especially among boys, (girls usually have more devious methods of harassment), is as much a part of the school experience as that cheating. It’s always been and probably always will be.
I can visualize young Greek boys sitting on the grass in the Athenian sun as Socrates attempted to share with them, using the Socratic Method, of course, his views of knowledge and virtue as the rambunctious Plato taunted Demetrius because his tunic was torn.
Asher Brown, a student at Hamilton Middle School outside Houston was probably bullied for most of his childhood but especially during his two years at Hamilton. He was different and differences, departures from the norm, often bring out the nasties in some kids. Things got so nasty for Asher that he went home, grabbed his stepfather’s 9mm baretta and shot himself in the head. He left no suicide note.
As his stepfather explained, “My son put a gun to his head because he couldn’t take what he was hearing and the constant teasing.”
Asher’s grieving parents say Hamilton administrators had looked the other way as their son was “bullied to death.” They say their son had “come out” to them over the summer and that they readily accepted his new status, his self-identification–at the very unripe age of 13–as a homosexual. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2013)
School bullying is as indefensible as school cheating, and as common.
Bullying, especially among boys, (girls usually have more devious methods of harassment), is as much a part of the school experience as that cheating. It’s always been and probably always will be.
I can visualize young Greek boys sitting on the grass in the Athenian sun as Socrates attempted to share with them, using the Socratic Method, of course, his views of knowledge and virtue as the rambunctious Plato taunted Demetrius because his tunic was torn.
Asher Brown, a student at Hamilton Middle School outside Houston was probably bullied for most of his childhood but especially during his two years at Hamilton. He was different and differences, departures from the norm, often bring out the nasties in some kids. Things got so nasty for Asher that he went home, grabbed his stepfather’s 9mm baretta and shot himself in the head. He left no suicide note.
As his stepfather explained, “My son put a gun to his head because he couldn’t take what he was hearing and the constant teasing.”
Asher’s grieving parents say Hamilton administrators had looked the other way as their son was “bullied to death.” They say their son had “come out” to them over the summer and that they readily accepted his new status, his self-identification–at the very unripe age of 13–as a homosexual. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2013)
The MSM, the DoJ, and the Death of Integrity
The MSM, the DoJ, and the Death of Integrity
Anyone who has ever harbored any doubts that the mainstream media is a left wing media, that it censors and distorts stories that conflict with its established liberal biases, that it’s a shameful embarrassment to the fundamental purposes of decent journalism should have had those doubts dispelled by the coverage, and lack of coverage, of the story that broke last Friday.
Indeed, the story has been out there for months, starting in July when Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams first revealed the seamy tale of black racism at the DoJ and that executive department’s disgraceful mishandling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.
Most of the MSM intentionally missed the boat on Adams’ revelations and compounded that grave journalistic sin of omission by skipping the new revelations by another Justice attorney, Chris Coates.
Coates went before the United States Civil Rights Commission and, defying the orders of his superiors, testified under oath to a whole host of negative charges against our Department of Justice. Coates swore under oath that: . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2007)
Anyone who has ever harbored any doubts that the mainstream media is a left wing media, that it censors and distorts stories that conflict with its established liberal biases, that it’s a shameful embarrassment to the fundamental purposes of decent journalism should have had those doubts dispelled by the coverage, and lack of coverage, of the story that broke last Friday.
Indeed, the story has been out there for months, starting in July when Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams first revealed the seamy tale of black racism at the DoJ and that executive department’s disgraceful mishandling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.
Most of the MSM intentionally missed the boat on Adams’ revelations and compounded that grave journalistic sin of omission by skipping the new revelations by another Justice attorney, Chris Coates.
Coates went before the United States Civil Rights Commission and, defying the orders of his superiors, testified under oath to a whole host of negative charges against our Department of Justice. Coates swore under oath that: . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2007)
Christians and Jews and Muslims, Oh My!
Christians and Jews and Muslims, Oh My!
“The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian,” according to JewishWorldReview,com, which goes on to say, “That is why American coins feature these two messages: ‘In G-d we trust’ and ‘Liberty.’ “
I think the first statement above is untrue and the second, meant to distinguish us from Christian European nations, is a non-sequitur not logically derived from the first.
The “definition” of America as “Judeo-Christian” has a fairly recent history advanced by those who wish it were so. Trusting in a “Christian God” as well as believing in liberty were foundational concepts of our Revolution and in the establishment of our Constitution and are certainly not attributable to any Jewish influence.
Granted, the Founding Fathers were well aware of the Jewish heritage and of Christianity’s relationship to that heritage and many, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, were Deists or dabblers in Deism. Deism, the popular monotheistic, religious fad of the Age of Enlightenment held that God was some detached ”Supreme Architect” of the universe rather than an involved Supreme Being, a Prime Mover not a personal God.
Point is, none of the Founders ever referred to the new nation they created as Judeo-Christian. They all knew their Bible well, both Old and New Testaments, but were, at worst, closet Christians; Jefferson even wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
This is all relevant today, two and a quarter centuries later, as our president, an ambivalent Christian at best, is suspected of being a closet Muslim. If that in fact is true, he’s covered his tracks well, getting married and having his daughters christened in an ostensibly Christian church and, when his popularity plummetted and mid-term elections loomed, actually attending a D.C. church service.
Whether his trusty teleprompter was in the repair shop or he just felt flush from his recent bamboozling of the American people, Mr. Obama went to Muslim Turkey six months after his election and disabused the Turks and the world and America’s 225 million Christians of the notion that America was any longer a Christian nation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2003)
“The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian,” according to JewishWorldReview,com, which goes on to say, “That is why American coins feature these two messages: ‘In G-d we trust’ and ‘Liberty.’ “
I think the first statement above is untrue and the second, meant to distinguish us from Christian European nations, is a non-sequitur not logically derived from the first.
The “definition” of America as “Judeo-Christian” has a fairly recent history advanced by those who wish it were so. Trusting in a “Christian God” as well as believing in liberty were foundational concepts of our Revolution and in the establishment of our Constitution and are certainly not attributable to any Jewish influence.
Granted, the Founding Fathers were well aware of the Jewish heritage and of Christianity’s relationship to that heritage and many, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, were Deists or dabblers in Deism. Deism, the popular monotheistic, religious fad of the Age of Enlightenment held that God was some detached ”Supreme Architect” of the universe rather than an involved Supreme Being, a Prime Mover not a personal God.
Point is, none of the Founders ever referred to the new nation they created as Judeo-Christian. They all knew their Bible well, both Old and New Testaments, but were, at worst, closet Christians; Jefferson even wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
This is all relevant today, two and a quarter centuries later, as our president, an ambivalent Christian at best, is suspected of being a closet Muslim. If that in fact is true, he’s covered his tracks well, getting married and having his daughters christened in an ostensibly Christian church and, when his popularity plummetted and mid-term elections loomed, actually attending a D.C. church service.
Whether his trusty teleprompter was in the repair shop or he just felt flush from his recent bamboozling of the American people, Mr. Obama went to Muslim Turkey six months after his election and disabused the Turks and the world and America’s 225 million Christians of the notion that America was any longer a Christian nation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2003)
Monday, September 27, 2010
Scary People in the News, Part Two: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Scary People in the News, Part Two: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
My second nominee for last week’s most scary people in the news is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a brilliant, Lebanese-born scholar, mathematician, epistemologist, and best-selling author who is scary for reasons different from Malik Zulu Shabazz’ scariness.
Shabazz is scary because he’s a dangerous black supremacist. Taleb is scary because he validates the opinion of millions of people who believe the President of the United States hasn’t a clue as to what he’s doing.
Taleb is the author of The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable. The Black Swan Theory” refers “to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history.”
Taleb has concluded that Obama’s vaunted “stimulus,” the linchpin of the administration’s scheme for reviving and stimulating the American economy, the stimulus he now wants replicated, was probably the worst thing that could have been done toward that end.
Now, that’s not really news. The administration’s tried–and failed–mantra that, “Bush did it!” never did ring true since our economic mess was a bi-partisan effort caused not chiefly by GWB spending like a drunken Dem but by Democrat congresses. Bush was grossly wrong. However, for necessary perspective, it was the Dems–with Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, and ACORN in the vanguard–who made a bad situation worse..
Democrats set up the housing crisis which precipitated the banking crisis by forcing lending institutions, especially but not exclusively Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, to grant mortgages to too many people who didn’t have a pot to pee in but whom Frank and Dodd magnanimously felt were entitled to the American Dream, to own a home of their own
That’s an admirable goal on its surface but pockmarked by the realities that many people aren’t prepared, financially or in practicality, to own a home.
All that aside, back to Professor Taleb who is scary mainly because he reinforces what economic conservatives have felt all along but haven’t had sufficient mainstream support to prove our contentions that Obama and his fellow hotshots, his economic gurus who believed spending gazillions of dollars, would lead the country back to prosperity if not to the land of boundless milk and honey, were and are horses’ derrieres.
It’s disconcerting to be right when being right means your country is in a financial pickle the likes of which we haven’t witnessed since the Great Depression and from which extricating ourselves will take generations, if we can succeed at all.
In a speech last week, Taleb charged that Obama and his merry band of economic clods weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt. That logical route to solvency was lost on Obama’s misbegotten band of inept advisors and may be in process of being phased out. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1991)
My second nominee for last week’s most scary people in the news is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a brilliant, Lebanese-born scholar, mathematician, epistemologist, and best-selling author who is scary for reasons different from Malik Zulu Shabazz’ scariness.
Shabazz is scary because he’s a dangerous black supremacist. Taleb is scary because he validates the opinion of millions of people who believe the President of the United States hasn’t a clue as to what he’s doing.
Taleb is the author of The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable. The Black Swan Theory” refers “to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history.”
Taleb has concluded that Obama’s vaunted “stimulus,” the linchpin of the administration’s scheme for reviving and stimulating the American economy, the stimulus he now wants replicated, was probably the worst thing that could have been done toward that end.
Now, that’s not really news. The administration’s tried–and failed–mantra that, “Bush did it!” never did ring true since our economic mess was a bi-partisan effort caused not chiefly by GWB spending like a drunken Dem but by Democrat congresses. Bush was grossly wrong. However, for necessary perspective, it was the Dems–with Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, and ACORN in the vanguard–who made a bad situation worse..
Democrats set up the housing crisis which precipitated the banking crisis by forcing lending institutions, especially but not exclusively Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, to grant mortgages to too many people who didn’t have a pot to pee in but whom Frank and Dodd magnanimously felt were entitled to the American Dream, to own a home of their own
That’s an admirable goal on its surface but pockmarked by the realities that many people aren’t prepared, financially or in practicality, to own a home.
All that aside, back to Professor Taleb who is scary mainly because he reinforces what economic conservatives have felt all along but haven’t had sufficient mainstream support to prove our contentions that Obama and his fellow hotshots, his economic gurus who believed spending gazillions of dollars, would lead the country back to prosperity if not to the land of boundless milk and honey, were and are horses’ derrieres.
It’s disconcerting to be right when being right means your country is in a financial pickle the likes of which we haven’t witnessed since the Great Depression and from which extricating ourselves will take generations, if we can succeed at all.
In a speech last week, Taleb charged that Obama and his merry band of economic clods weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt. That logical route to solvency was lost on Obama’s misbegotten band of inept advisors and may be in process of being phased out. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1991)
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Scary People in the News, Part One
Scary People in the News, Part One
Lots of news is scary nowadays but some news is scarier than other news. My first nomination for last week’s scariest people in the news:
Malik Zulu Shabazz: Readers of this blog and of other conservative websites should be familiar with Shabazz but few others are, and there’s a reason for that.
The rabid, Jew- hater Shabazz is the notorious national chairman of the radical New Black Panther Party which has been on a few news wires of late because of revelations of black racism in our Justice Department and the attempts to muzzle DoJ attorneys J. Christian Adams and Chris Coates in their attempts to expose that racism.
Adams and Coates defied their superiors at Justice and testified to the widespread racism in the DoJ’s civil rights section where the de facto conviction of Shabazz and other members of the NBPP for white voter intimidation in Philadelphia was ignored and buried. Shabazz is believed to have been the NBPP thug who observed to a white observer at that Philly polling place, “Now you see what it’s like to be ruled by a black man, cracker!”
(For more information on the New Black Panther Party case, please see “Our Department of Selective Justice,” http://tiny.cc/rrnae)
Considering the blockbuster news of injustice at the Justice Department, one would have thought that even our leftist-biased mainstream media would have been forced to cover it but one would be hard put to see any coverage on the broadcast or cable networks except, of course, on the Fox News Channel.
One would find it even more challenging to find any coverage of a visit to the White House by a “Malik Shabazz,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?page_id=1982)
Lots of news is scary nowadays but some news is scarier than other news. My first nomination for last week’s scariest people in the news:
Malik Zulu Shabazz: Readers of this blog and of other conservative websites should be familiar with Shabazz but few others are, and there’s a reason for that.
The rabid, Jew- hater Shabazz is the notorious national chairman of the radical New Black Panther Party which has been on a few news wires of late because of revelations of black racism in our Justice Department and the attempts to muzzle DoJ attorneys J. Christian Adams and Chris Coates in their attempts to expose that racism.
Adams and Coates defied their superiors at Justice and testified to the widespread racism in the DoJ’s civil rights section where the de facto conviction of Shabazz and other members of the NBPP for white voter intimidation in Philadelphia was ignored and buried. Shabazz is believed to have been the NBPP thug who observed to a white observer at that Philly polling place, “Now you see what it’s like to be ruled by a black man, cracker!”
(For more information on the New Black Panther Party case, please see “Our Department of Selective Justice,” http://tiny.cc/rrnae)
Considering the blockbuster news of injustice at the Justice Department, one would have thought that even our leftist-biased mainstream media would have been forced to cover it but one would be hard put to see any coverage on the broadcast or cable networks except, of course, on the Fox News Channel.
One would find it even more challenging to find any coverage of a visit to the White House by a “Malik Shabazz,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?page_id=1982)
The Attempted Deconstruction of Christine O'Donnell
The Attempted Deconstruction of Christine O'Donnell
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, and vile slander and vicious bile may be the surest evidence of fear, at least on the part of leftists.
We saw that trick played out with Sarah Palin in 2008, a tactical pattern which continues to this day demonstrating continued terror of her presidential candidacy in 2012. We’re witnessing comparable leftist slander and bile now with respect to the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from the state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell and, indeed, of the whole Tea Party Movement.
That tactic of marginalization, defamation, and demonization of opponents is excerpted from the Saul Alinsky playbook. It’s not mere coincidence that our president was an ardent admirer of Alinsky during his days as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago and earlier when he wrote an article which became chapter four in After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Like stealth assassins, the Alinsky-ites move from candidate to candidate, from intended victim to intended victim, and it’s not surprising that, with the aid and comfort of the mainstream media, the left has now drawn a bead on Christine O’Donnell in what can only be called a literal witch hunt.
“At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, [she] engaged in fantasy chats with [Eleanor] Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of [her] heroes:” http://tiny.cc/r14ityc3bh
No, that wasn’t Ms. O’Donnell who conversed with people long dead, that was former First Lady, current Secretary of State, and perpetual wannabe president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those “chats,” seances, if you will, were conducted by Mrs. Clinton in the White House when she was in her mid-forties or early fifties.
I mention age only because Christine O’Donnell has admitted to her grave sin of “dabbling” in Wicca, in witchcraft–while she was a teenager in high school, those years when teenagers “dabble” in the most godawful, silly ideas and activities for which their natural immaturity is a valid defense.
Hillary was a full-fledged adult with no adolescent defense for being weird yet she escaped any serious derision or calumny. Christine is being defamed and ridiculed for her youthful silliness of a quarter century ago while she was studying earth science and intermediate algebra and sheepishly giggling in the school library when the school jocks strolled by. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1975)
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, and vile slander and vicious bile may be the surest evidence of fear, at least on the part of leftists.
We saw that trick played out with Sarah Palin in 2008, a tactical pattern which continues to this day demonstrating continued terror of her presidential candidacy in 2012. We’re witnessing comparable leftist slander and bile now with respect to the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from the state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell and, indeed, of the whole Tea Party Movement.
That tactic of marginalization, defamation, and demonization of opponents is excerpted from the Saul Alinsky playbook. It’s not mere coincidence that our president was an ardent admirer of Alinsky during his days as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago and earlier when he wrote an article which became chapter four in After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Like stealth assassins, the Alinsky-ites move from candidate to candidate, from intended victim to intended victim, and it’s not surprising that, with the aid and comfort of the mainstream media, the left has now drawn a bead on Christine O’Donnell in what can only be called a literal witch hunt.
“At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, [she] engaged in fantasy chats with [Eleanor] Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of [her] heroes:” http://tiny.cc/r14ityc3bh
No, that wasn’t Ms. O’Donnell who conversed with people long dead, that was former First Lady, current Secretary of State, and perpetual wannabe president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those “chats,” seances, if you will, were conducted by Mrs. Clinton in the White House when she was in her mid-forties or early fifties.
I mention age only because Christine O’Donnell has admitted to her grave sin of “dabbling” in Wicca, in witchcraft–while she was a teenager in high school, those years when teenagers “dabble” in the most godawful, silly ideas and activities for which their natural immaturity is a valid defense.
Hillary was a full-fledged adult with no adolescent defense for being weird yet she escaped any serious derision or calumny. Christine is being defamed and ridiculed for her youthful silliness of a quarter century ago while she was studying earth science and intermediate algebra and sheepishly giggling in the school library when the school jocks strolled by. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1975)
Friday, September 24, 2010
Our Department of Selective Justice
Our Department of Selective Justice
. . . Adams’ charges needed no collaboration; his record and reputation spoke for themselves. However, now they have been seconded in spades by an equally-well respected DOJ prosecuter, Christopher Coates.
Coates ”defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: Top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group [the New Black Panther Party] because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.”
Coates went even further, saying that, “the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged ‘race neutral’ enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified.”
In Coates’ own words, “They [the Department of Justice] have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people:” http://tiny.cc/jihx8 . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1960)
. . . Adams’ charges needed no collaboration; his record and reputation spoke for themselves. However, now they have been seconded in spades by an equally-well respected DOJ prosecuter, Christopher Coates.
Coates ”defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: Top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group [the New Black Panther Party] because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.”
Coates went even further, saying that, “the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged ‘race neutral’ enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified.”
In Coates’ own words, “They [the Department of Justice] have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people:” http://tiny.cc/jihx8 . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1960)
Chris Christie and the Baby Killers
Chris Christie and the Baby Killers
There is no joy in Abortionville today. The mighty PPFOA has struck out, at least in New Jersey.
The nation’s most industrious abortionists, those folks at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the folks who like to pretend they plan parenthhood for people but who actually excel at terminating possible parenthood, have been cut off by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
Christie terminated $7.5 million in public funding for PPFOA by his cash-strapped state, a move which irritated Planned Parenthood and Jersey senatorial Democrats so much that they spitefully reinstated payment of the taxpayer monies in a 30-10 vote, with help from a few Republicans. The governor promptly vetoed the measure and the Senate tried to override but the few Republicans refused to contradict their party’s governor and the effort failed.
The result: The Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey’s Cherry Hill abortion center was forced to shutter its doors, an action that was no doubt disappointing to the eager abortion purveyors of Cherry Hill. They at least could draw solace from the fact women would still be “serviced” by PP-SNJ facilities in Camden, Bellmawr, and Edgewater Park.
Christie’s veto followed an earlier veto in July of a bill intended to restore funding for family planning centers.
A number of questions arise from those two vetoes but first, a personal observation, a glum oservation.
Over the last half-century, aborting the pre-born has become a popular indoor sport in our sorry world with some 42 million abortions committed annually or approximately 115,000 per day, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the ”non-profit” research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps some, certainly not all, of our sorry world’s ills can be attributed to the planet’s growing disregard for human life . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1952)
There is no joy in Abortionville today. The mighty PPFOA has struck out, at least in New Jersey.
The nation’s most industrious abortionists, those folks at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the folks who like to pretend they plan parenthhood for people but who actually excel at terminating possible parenthood, have been cut off by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
Christie terminated $7.5 million in public funding for PPFOA by his cash-strapped state, a move which irritated Planned Parenthood and Jersey senatorial Democrats so much that they spitefully reinstated payment of the taxpayer monies in a 30-10 vote, with help from a few Republicans. The governor promptly vetoed the measure and the Senate tried to override but the few Republicans refused to contradict their party’s governor and the effort failed.
The result: The Planned Parenthood of Southern New Jersey’s Cherry Hill abortion center was forced to shutter its doors, an action that was no doubt disappointing to the eager abortion purveyors of Cherry Hill. They at least could draw solace from the fact women would still be “serviced” by PP-SNJ facilities in Camden, Bellmawr, and Edgewater Park.
Christie’s veto followed an earlier veto in July of a bill intended to restore funding for family planning centers.
A number of questions arise from those two vetoes but first, a personal observation, a glum oservation.
Over the last half-century, aborting the pre-born has become a popular indoor sport in our sorry world with some 42 million abortions committed annually or approximately 115,000 per day, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the ”non-profit” research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps some, certainly not all, of our sorry world’s ills can be attributed to the planet’s growing disregard for human life . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1952)
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
All the President's Wars
All the President's Wars
Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.
In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.
All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.
In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.
To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.
A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.
In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi
Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?
Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)
Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.
In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.
All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.
In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.
To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.
A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.
In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi
Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?
Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Obama's Aunt Zeituni: Ingrate!
Obama's Aunt Zeituni: Ingrate!
What do you do with an auntie named Zeituni?
I posed that Maria-ish question back in February in “Zeituni’s Place in Obama’s Zeitgeist,” (http://tiny.cc/ncqdx), when President Barack Hussein Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango was still awaiting a decision on her third request for asylum in the United States.
Onyango, a Kenyan, just like Obama’s father and much of his extended family, arrived on our shores in 2000, overstayed her visa–by about 10 years–went on welfare and lived in a homeless shelter.
She then was given priority treatment for public housing in Boston while seeking legal refuge here on the questionable basis that she would be in danger if she returned home to Kenya because she was the aunt of a U.S. president.
Unemployed, she still lives in South Boston on disability payments of $700. a month.
In any event, she insisted she didn’t want any special treatment from nephew Barack due to her familial status, and insists she didn’t get any.
Despite being fondly remembered in Obama’s Dreams from My Father, the president said that if she were living here as an illegal alien–which she was, and on the dole–”Dear Auntie Zeituni” should be deported. As he put it, ”If she has violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed. We are a nation of laws.”
To his credit, I guess, Obama cuts no slack for relatives. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1917)
What do you do with an auntie named Zeituni?
I posed that Maria-ish question back in February in “Zeituni’s Place in Obama’s Zeitgeist,” (http://tiny.cc/ncqdx), when President Barack Hussein Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango was still awaiting a decision on her third request for asylum in the United States.
Onyango, a Kenyan, just like Obama’s father and much of his extended family, arrived on our shores in 2000, overstayed her visa–by about 10 years–went on welfare and lived in a homeless shelter.
She then was given priority treatment for public housing in Boston while seeking legal refuge here on the questionable basis that she would be in danger if she returned home to Kenya because she was the aunt of a U.S. president.
Unemployed, she still lives in South Boston on disability payments of $700. a month.
In any event, she insisted she didn’t want any special treatment from nephew Barack due to her familial status, and insists she didn’t get any.
Despite being fondly remembered in Obama’s Dreams from My Father, the president said that if she were living here as an illegal alien–which she was, and on the dole–”Dear Auntie Zeituni” should be deported. As he put it, ”If she has violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed. We are a nation of laws.”
To his credit, I guess, Obama cuts no slack for relatives. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1917)
Who Is Stephen Hawking?
Who Is Stephen Hawking?
Stephen William Hawking is many things.
Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, best-selling author, divorced from his second wife and father of three with three grandchildren, British recipient of America’s Presidential Medal of Freedom, (Retired) Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, Hawking is celebrated as one of the most brilliant men alive, if not the most brilliant man alive, if not the most brilliant man who has ever lived. He was the first to theorize Hawking Radiation emitted by Black Holes in the universe and has more degrees and awards, and fans, than one can count.
Amazingly, despite having contracted crippling neuro-muscular dystrophy, a form of ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease in his 20′s, at 68, he continues to think deeply, write prodigiously, and actively publish his thoughts.
Being a dolt, I shouldn’t comment on Hawking’s many accomplishments but some of his publicized views and opinions of late have to be termed, at the minimum odd, at the extreme, bizarre.
It comes down to the question, Do we continue to take seriously even a deep thinker with an I.Q. said to be in the area of 160 when he begins to contradict himself and to publicize his unsubstantiated and bizarre reflections? Also, should we take seriously mathematical-scientific geniuses–such as Einstein or Hawking–when they make theological observations?
One recent bizarre Hawking comment concerned aliens. He wasn’t referring to Mexican illegals but to the extraterrestrial, ET, type. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1879)
Stephen William Hawking is many things.
Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, best-selling author, divorced from his second wife and father of three with three grandchildren, British recipient of America’s Presidential Medal of Freedom, (Retired) Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, Hawking is celebrated as one of the most brilliant men alive, if not the most brilliant man alive, if not the most brilliant man who has ever lived. He was the first to theorize Hawking Radiation emitted by Black Holes in the universe and has more degrees and awards, and fans, than one can count.
Amazingly, despite having contracted crippling neuro-muscular dystrophy, a form of ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease in his 20′s, at 68, he continues to think deeply, write prodigiously, and actively publish his thoughts.
Being a dolt, I shouldn’t comment on Hawking’s many accomplishments but some of his publicized views and opinions of late have to be termed, at the minimum odd, at the extreme, bizarre.
It comes down to the question, Do we continue to take seriously even a deep thinker with an I.Q. said to be in the area of 160 when he begins to contradict himself and to publicize his unsubstantiated and bizarre reflections? Also, should we take seriously mathematical-scientific geniuses–such as Einstein or Hawking–when they make theological observations?
One recent bizarre Hawking comment concerned aliens. He wasn’t referring to Mexican illegals but to the extraterrestrial, ET, type. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1879)
Monday, September 20, 2010
Bill Gates, Eugenicist and Death Panel Advocate
Bill Gates, Eugenicist and Death Panel Advocate
Eugenics, the study of human genetics and of methods to improve inherited physical and mental characteristics of the human race, must be a fascinating scientific field, so fascinating that it has attracted the close attention of such twentieth century notables as Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, and our own William Henry “Bill” Gates, III.
Sanger, you may recall, was the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually morphed into Planned Parenthood of America and which advocated black genocide and the forced sterilization of the “unfit,” policies Sanger saw as insuring the “salvation of American civilization.”
Mengele, you may recall, was the Nazi ”Angel of Death” who tortured and experimented on Jewish and Gypsy children at Auschwitz before they were sent to the gas chambers, all in the interests of accomplishing Hitler’s and Heinrich Himmler’s die Endlösung der Judenfrage, their ”Final Solution” for the Jewish “problem.”
A relatively new member in that rarified atmosphere of twisted frankensteins and mass murderers is Gates, multi-billionaire founder and Chairman of Microsoft, philantropist, avid supporter of Barack Obama and Obamacare, and, you may not recall since it’s been given precious little press, enthusiastic advocate of those Obamacare “death panels” which we were told do not and will not exist.
It all depends on terminology, I guess.
This past summer the pragmatist Gates bemoaned during the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, CO a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers. He snidely added,. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1906)
Eugenics, the study of human genetics and of methods to improve inherited physical and mental characteristics of the human race, must be a fascinating scientific field, so fascinating that it has attracted the close attention of such twentieth century notables as Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, and our own William Henry “Bill” Gates, III.
Sanger, you may recall, was the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually morphed into Planned Parenthood of America and which advocated black genocide and the forced sterilization of the “unfit,” policies Sanger saw as insuring the “salvation of American civilization.”
Mengele, you may recall, was the Nazi ”Angel of Death” who tortured and experimented on Jewish and Gypsy children at Auschwitz before they were sent to the gas chambers, all in the interests of accomplishing Hitler’s and Heinrich Himmler’s die Endlösung der Judenfrage, their ”Final Solution” for the Jewish “problem.”
A relatively new member in that rarified atmosphere of twisted frankensteins and mass murderers is Gates, multi-billionaire founder and Chairman of Microsoft, philantropist, avid supporter of Barack Obama and Obamacare, and, you may not recall since it’s been given precious little press, enthusiastic advocate of those Obamacare “death panels” which we were told do not and will not exist.
It all depends on terminology, I guess.
This past summer the pragmatist Gates bemoaned during the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, CO a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers. He snidely added,. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1906)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Afterthought: The Qur'an, aka the Koran
The Qur'an, aka the Koran
The Qur’an, the Koran, Islam’s holy book, has been much in the news of late in relation to everything from the Mideast, to the Monster Mosque, to Qur’an/Koran burnings by despicable Christians.
Those Christians shrug off Bible burnings and cross desecrations and murders of their fellow Christians by Islamists at the same time Islamists threaten to torch the universe over alleged disrespect for the holy Qur’an/Koran or the holy prophet, Muhammed, or Mohammed, or just plain Mo.
I guess that, like beauty, “holy” is in the mind of the beholder.
Mr. Andrew Beacham, a courageous American, defied Muslim threats against his First Amendment privileges by tearing pages from the Qur’an/Koran in front of the White House on the 9th anniversary of the Islamic attacks on America.
Beacham was selective in his burning in that he didn’t burn the Qur’an/Koran per se. That burning was the threat posed by Pastor Terry Jones of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship who backed down after President Obama/AG Holder sent the FBI to “persuade” him, ala Tony Soprano, of the error of his ways.
Beacham chose relevant passages and pages from the Qur’an/Koran to conflagrate in the shadow of Barack Hussein Obama’s executive mansion. That selectivity could lead to allegations that the excerpts were taken out of context, except for the fact they weren’t.
In that same vein, I guess the Angel of Death, the Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele’s reports on his experimentations on Jews could be considered non-contextual.
The reader should judge for him or herself as to whether these Qur’an/Koran passages could be out of context. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1904)
The Qur’an, the Koran, Islam’s holy book, has been much in the news of late in relation to everything from the Mideast, to the Monster Mosque, to Qur’an/Koran burnings by despicable Christians.
Those Christians shrug off Bible burnings and cross desecrations and murders of their fellow Christians by Islamists at the same time Islamists threaten to torch the universe over alleged disrespect for the holy Qur’an/Koran or the holy prophet, Muhammed, or Mohammed, or just plain Mo.
I guess that, like beauty, “holy” is in the mind of the beholder.
Mr. Andrew Beacham, a courageous American, defied Muslim threats against his First Amendment privileges by tearing pages from the Qur’an/Koran in front of the White House on the 9th anniversary of the Islamic attacks on America.
Beacham was selective in his burning in that he didn’t burn the Qur’an/Koran per se. That burning was the threat posed by Pastor Terry Jones of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship who backed down after President Obama/AG Holder sent the FBI to “persuade” him, ala Tony Soprano, of the error of his ways.
Beacham chose relevant passages and pages from the Qur’an/Koran to conflagrate in the shadow of Barack Hussein Obama’s executive mansion. That selectivity could lead to allegations that the excerpts were taken out of context, except for the fact they weren’t.
In that same vein, I guess the Angel of Death, the Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele’s reports on his experimentations on Jews could be considered non-contextual.
The reader should judge for him or herself as to whether these Qur’an/Koran passages could be out of context. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1904)
DADT: Gays, Civil Rights, and Racists
DADT: Gays, Civil Rights, and Racists
As the Senate prepares to consider repeal of the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, a senior military official expressed his imperious–and odd–views on the issue.
Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters, drew parallels between the civil rights movement and the effort to repeal DADT. He condemned those who favor retention of DADT, those who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender agenda, as racists who should forthwith be drummed out of the military.
More specifically, Bostick, a black officer, said that, “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”
If I understand those statements correctly, anyone who opposes repealing DADT is the equivalent of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and David Duke because they fear the negative impact of repeal on our military and believe repeal would be morally repugnant.
According to the general, if you harbor moral and religious objections, it’s just too damned bad. Just sit down, shut up, and keep your opinions to yourself or get out. The United States Army will brook no opposition.
General Bostick would seem better suited to running a gulag than tending to personnel matters.
As the Washington Times opined . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1905)
As the Senate prepares to consider repeal of the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces, a senior military official expressed his imperious–and odd–views on the issue.
Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters, drew parallels between the civil rights movement and the effort to repeal DADT. He condemned those who favor retention of DADT, those who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender agenda, as racists who should forthwith be drummed out of the military.
More specifically, Bostick, a black officer, said that, “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”
If I understand those statements correctly, anyone who opposes repealing DADT is the equivalent of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and David Duke because they fear the negative impact of repeal on our military and believe repeal would be morally repugnant.
According to the general, if you harbor moral and religious objections, it’s just too damned bad. Just sit down, shut up, and keep your opinions to yourself or get out. The United States Army will brook no opposition.
General Bostick would seem better suited to running a gulag than tending to personnel matters.
As the Washington Times opined . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1905)
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Christine O'Donnell and Rampaging RINOs
Christine O'Donnell and Rampaging RINOs
. . . However, this is not about the Tea Party. This is about a Tea Party candidate and her campaign for the Republican Party nomination for the office of United States Senator from the great state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell.
No relation to Rosie, thank God! Christine is an attractive and personable New Jersey native who has articulated very distinctive and, for 2010, somewhat unorthodox views which put her at odds with the RINO establishment types. Many of them would be more at ease with a Rosie O’Donnell candidacy than with Christine O’Donnell’s.
Christine’s conservative views with regard to personal chastity as well as vicious personal attacks are now being used to defeat her in the same way they were used against Sarah Palin, an early and prime supporter.
That’s a good thing, really. A sure sign of liberal-Democrats’ gut fear of a candidate is the gutter level of their attacks.
Whether it was Christine’s personal philosophy and viewpoints or her Tea Party endorsement and backing that effectively turned off the RINOs, she was treated as a virtual pariah by the establishment types before the primary with RINO stalwart and former Delaware governor, “moderate” Mike Castle. Castle could never seem to figure out if he was a Democrat or Republican yet he was backed by the RINOs. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1901)
. . . However, this is not about the Tea Party. This is about a Tea Party candidate and her campaign for the Republican Party nomination for the office of United States Senator from the great state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell.
No relation to Rosie, thank God! Christine is an attractive and personable New Jersey native who has articulated very distinctive and, for 2010, somewhat unorthodox views which put her at odds with the RINO establishment types. Many of them would be more at ease with a Rosie O’Donnell candidacy than with Christine O’Donnell’s.
Christine’s conservative views with regard to personal chastity as well as vicious personal attacks are now being used to defeat her in the same way they were used against Sarah Palin, an early and prime supporter.
That’s a good thing, really. A sure sign of liberal-Democrats’ gut fear of a candidate is the gutter level of their attacks.
Whether it was Christine’s personal philosophy and viewpoints or her Tea Party endorsement and backing that effectively turned off the RINOs, she was treated as a virtual pariah by the establishment types before the primary with RINO stalwart and former Delaware governor, “moderate” Mike Castle. Castle could never seem to figure out if he was a Democrat or Republican yet he was backed by the RINOs. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1901)
Friday, September 17, 2010
Truthers' Case: Tommyrot or Substantive? The Final Installment
Truthers' Case: Tommyrot or Substantive? The Final Installment
Chiefly due to deference to a good buddy, I’ve tried to be objective over the whole 9/11 controversy, at least insofar as allegations that the United States government in general and the GWB administration in particular were complicit in that unspeakable disaster was concerned.
Not that I’m a government apparatchik or Bush idolator–I think our governments are out of control and that George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America and the Republican Party since Harding–but right is right and truth is truth.
Having spent a good deal of time–too much time–on this issue I can say unequivocably, without fear of contradiction, that I still don’t know the truth.
It would seem, however, that a major weapon in the fight to prove a government conspiracy, “Loose Change,” is a load of hogwash conceived originally as a fictional work and later converted into an alleged documentary for the sole purpose of making some big bucks for its writer and producers.
See “Was 9/11 an Inside Job?” http://bit.ly/dp2Hz
In addition, some Truthers take flights of fantasy to the level of absurdity. They would include charges that the Pentagon wasn’t struck by any aircraft and that Flight 93 never did crash in Shanksville and all of its 31 passengers were fellow conspirators whisked away by the government who consented to live somewhere in seclusion for the rest of their days.
Not bloody likely.
That said, much of the rest of the Truthers’ case is, if not gospel truth then at the minimum worthy of further investigation.
For example:
. Why were there hundreds of red-gray chips of “unignited thermite” discovered in every WTC dust sample? That’s a question raised by a highly reputable and professional group, WorldArchitecturalNews.com, http://tiny.cc/iiwzz . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1900)
Chiefly due to deference to a good buddy, I’ve tried to be objective over the whole 9/11 controversy, at least insofar as allegations that the United States government in general and the GWB administration in particular were complicit in that unspeakable disaster was concerned.
Not that I’m a government apparatchik or Bush idolator–I think our governments are out of control and that George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America and the Republican Party since Harding–but right is right and truth is truth.
Having spent a good deal of time–too much time–on this issue I can say unequivocably, without fear of contradiction, that I still don’t know the truth.
It would seem, however, that a major weapon in the fight to prove a government conspiracy, “Loose Change,” is a load of hogwash conceived originally as a fictional work and later converted into an alleged documentary for the sole purpose of making some big bucks for its writer and producers.
See “Was 9/11 an Inside Job?” http://bit.ly/dp2Hz
In addition, some Truthers take flights of fantasy to the level of absurdity. They would include charges that the Pentagon wasn’t struck by any aircraft and that Flight 93 never did crash in Shanksville and all of its 31 passengers were fellow conspirators whisked away by the government who consented to live somewhere in seclusion for the rest of their days.
Not bloody likely.
That said, much of the rest of the Truthers’ case is, if not gospel truth then at the minimum worthy of further investigation.
For example:
. Why were there hundreds of red-gray chips of “unignited thermite” discovered in every WTC dust sample? That’s a question raised by a highly reputable and professional group, WorldArchitecturalNews.com, http://tiny.cc/iiwzz . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1900)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Michelle, in Hell
Michelle, in Hell
Michelle, in Hell.
Sont les mots qui vont tres bien ensemble,
tres bien ensemble.
Those are words that go together well because Michelle Obama uttered them.
According to Carla Bruni Sarkozy, last March on a state visit to the White House, the French First Lady said that when she asked the American First Lady what Michelle thought of that position Michelle responded, “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”
Carla, a former actress and model who is still foxy, yet ladylike, also said she liked her American counterpart in her new, collaborative book, Carla and the Ambitious, although that sentiment might not now be reciprocated since the White House, as expected, denies Mrs. Obama ever said such a thing.
Why she would say such a thing considering her perks as the president’s consort would be bewildering. After all, she’s given a comfortable, free pad in D.C., free use of Air Force Two, a paid entourage of some 24 people to tend to her needs, free or highly-subsidized vacations to Spain’s Costa del Sol and feted by King Carlos, and lord knows what other bennies.
That’s not too shabby for the daughter of a civil servant and a secretary!
The not-quite-tell-all Carla and the Ambitious also reveals that “On the advice of the Obamas, [Carla and hubby Nic] don’t read the papers in the morning any more:” http://tiny.cc/vwhvm
Those tidbits of information aside, it’s also disconcerting that America’s First Lady who, apparently, was discontented with being an American when she said during the presidential campaign that she was never proud of her nationality, is discontented with her “job” now. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1899)
Michelle, in Hell.
Sont les mots qui vont tres bien ensemble,
tres bien ensemble.
Those are words that go together well because Michelle Obama uttered them.
According to Carla Bruni Sarkozy, last March on a state visit to the White House, the French First Lady said that when she asked the American First Lady what Michelle thought of that position Michelle responded, “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”
Carla, a former actress and model who is still foxy, yet ladylike, also said she liked her American counterpart in her new, collaborative book, Carla and the Ambitious, although that sentiment might not now be reciprocated since the White House, as expected, denies Mrs. Obama ever said such a thing.
Why she would say such a thing considering her perks as the president’s consort would be bewildering. After all, she’s given a comfortable, free pad in D.C., free use of Air Force Two, a paid entourage of some 24 people to tend to her needs, free or highly-subsidized vacations to Spain’s Costa del Sol and feted by King Carlos, and lord knows what other bennies.
That’s not too shabby for the daughter of a civil servant and a secretary!
The not-quite-tell-all Carla and the Ambitious also reveals that “On the advice of the Obamas, [Carla and hubby Nic] don’t read the papers in the morning any more:” http://tiny.cc/vwhvm
Those tidbits of information aside, it’s also disconcerting that America’s First Lady who, apparently, was discontented with being an American when she said during the presidential campaign that she was never proud of her nationality, is discontented with her “job” now. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1899)
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Building 7 and the Truthers' Case
Building 7 and the Truthers' Case
Today, the Truther side. The Truthers: In essence, based on video evidence and the vertical, symmetrical fall, “Building 7’s collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled [precision] demolition” and could not possibly have resulted from debris damage from the North or South towers nor from burning diesel fuel.
Furthermore, ”fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure” in the hundred-year history of such structures: http://tiny.cc/glwtz. (See that website for specific details of those findings.)
The Truthers also have an eyewitness on their side, that is they had an eyewitness, one Barry Jennings, an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority. Jennings had entered Building 7 after the first tower was hit but while both towers were still standing.
He later said the building was crammed with NYPD officers and that he definitely heard explosions before he was ordered out. Jennings escaped with his life but died a mysterious death in 2008 at age 53.
As one Truther-friendly website explained, incorporating Jennings as a victim in the conspiracy, ”In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability:” http://tiny.cc/vkixx
Another notable Truther . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1898)
Today, the Truther side. The Truthers: In essence, based on video evidence and the vertical, symmetrical fall, “Building 7’s collapse showed all of the essential features of a controlled [precision] demolition” and could not possibly have resulted from debris damage from the North or South towers nor from burning diesel fuel.
Furthermore, ”fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure” in the hundred-year history of such structures: http://tiny.cc/glwtz. (See that website for specific details of those findings.)
The Truthers also have an eyewitness on their side, that is they had an eyewitness, one Barry Jennings, an emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority. Jennings had entered Building 7 after the first tower was hit but while both towers were still standing.
He later said the building was crammed with NYPD officers and that he definitely heard explosions before he was ordered out. Jennings escaped with his life but died a mysterious death in 2008 at age 53.
As one Truther-friendly website explained, incorporating Jennings as a victim in the conspiracy, ”In every major cover up from the JFK assassination to Iran Contra, we can see one common thread. The untimely death of eyewitnesses. Barry Jennings was not only an important and most credible eyewitness, but he openly refuted much of the government, and media version of events. He was a liability:” http://tiny.cc/vkixx
Another notable Truther . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1898)
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Your Gubmints in Action
Your Gubmints in Action
. . . Now, research is of critical importance to the advancement of knowledge and national progress, although in these strained economic times one would hope sparse cash would be awarded prudently and sparingly.
That $823,200. was granted to that UCLA research team for the purpose of teaching “uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study . . . [but] only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law:” http://tiny.cc/q1d2j
It’s very heartening to know that our taxes are being well spent prudently and sparingly and that African men may have cleaner penises as a result, a goal way up there on the wish list of most Americans.
Meanwhile, a devil must have gone down to Georgia and taken up residence in the DeKalb County code enforcement office. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1897)
. . . Now, research is of critical importance to the advancement of knowledge and national progress, although in these strained economic times one would hope sparse cash would be awarded prudently and sparingly.
That $823,200. was granted to that UCLA research team for the purpose of teaching “uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex. The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study . . . [but] only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law:” http://tiny.cc/q1d2j
It’s very heartening to know that our taxes are being well spent prudently and sparingly and that African men may have cleaner penises as a result, a goal way up there on the wish list of most Americans.
Meanwhile, a devil must have gone down to Georgia and taken up residence in the DeKalb County code enforcement office. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1897)
Of Birthers and Truthers, Part Two
Of Birthers and Truthers, Part Two
. . . Now that the ninth anniversary of what is easily the most godawful day in American history, September 11th, 2001, has passed without the threatened Qur’an burnings in Florida–thanks to the persuasive words and strong arms of the FBI–we can sit back and await the momentous tenth anniversary which may see a mosque overshadowing Ground Zero.
One group of people won’t be sitting back, however. The 9/11 Truthers, aka 9/11 Skeptics, aka Truth Activists, rarely sit back.
They believe in their gut that the United States government and/or President George W. Bush somehow, in some way, planned/caused/executed/allowed/consented to (choose one or more of the foregoing) the hijacking of four American airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center towers, into the Pentagon, and into the ground at Shanksville, PA.
On face value, the Truthers’ case would have to be considered the most preposterous of all conspiracy theories, the most outrageous accusations against its government by its people, a reflection of a bitterness and cynicism so complete and sinister that they could conceive of their leadership murdering 3,000 innocents to accomplish their own Machiavellian ends.
I don’t buy it but I have to admit these Truthers raise troubling and still unanswered questions about 9/11.
I started out with ingrained opinions on the Truthers but, as with the Birthers, I try to be as objective as possible, one reason being that I promised a good friend, a closet Truther, that I would strive for objectivity. . .
(Read more about Truthers at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1895)
. . . Now that the ninth anniversary of what is easily the most godawful day in American history, September 11th, 2001, has passed without the threatened Qur’an burnings in Florida–thanks to the persuasive words and strong arms of the FBI–we can sit back and await the momentous tenth anniversary which may see a mosque overshadowing Ground Zero.
One group of people won’t be sitting back, however. The 9/11 Truthers, aka 9/11 Skeptics, aka Truth Activists, rarely sit back.
They believe in their gut that the United States government and/or President George W. Bush somehow, in some way, planned/caused/executed/allowed/consented to (choose one or more of the foregoing) the hijacking of four American airliners and flying them into the World Trade Center towers, into the Pentagon, and into the ground at Shanksville, PA.
On face value, the Truthers’ case would have to be considered the most preposterous of all conspiracy theories, the most outrageous accusations against its government by its people, a reflection of a bitterness and cynicism so complete and sinister that they could conceive of their leadership murdering 3,000 innocents to accomplish their own Machiavellian ends.
I don’t buy it but I have to admit these Truthers raise troubling and still unanswered questions about 9/11.
I started out with ingrained opinions on the Truthers but, as with the Birthers, I try to be as objective as possible, one reason being that I promised a good friend, a closet Truther, that I would strive for objectivity. . .
(Read more about Truthers at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1895)
Monday, September 13, 2010
A "Birther" Refuter
A "Birther" Refuter
A rapid, extended–and emphatic–refutation quickly followed the posting of my article, “Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One.”
Because of the rapidity, detailed–and forceful– response and at the risk of suggesting yet another conspiracy, one has to wonder whether the commenter, “granite,” who is otherwise unidentified, is a member of a presidential Rapid Response Team assigned to shoot down any speculation as to Barack Hussein Obama’s true birthplace and eligibility for the presidency.
Please note that in that article, I didn’t take a position on the validity of the Birthers’ claims and merely tried to show that the MSM has ignored most of their allegations.
Below is the notice of “granite’s” comment and that comment verbatim. The reader should also be aware that all the issues in the article aren’t addressed and that, of the six links provided by “granite” to substantiate his case, four are broken, (”Page not found,” etc.) Make of that what you will.
Refutations of this refuter, (which, by the way, is in fact a word unlike “refudiate”), are invited. . .
(Read "granite's" full comment at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1896)
A rapid, extended–and emphatic–refutation quickly followed the posting of my article, “Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One.”
Because of the rapidity, detailed–and forceful– response and at the risk of suggesting yet another conspiracy, one has to wonder whether the commenter, “granite,” who is otherwise unidentified, is a member of a presidential Rapid Response Team assigned to shoot down any speculation as to Barack Hussein Obama’s true birthplace and eligibility for the presidency.
Please note that in that article, I didn’t take a position on the validity of the Birthers’ claims and merely tried to show that the MSM has ignored most of their allegations.
Below is the notice of “granite’s” comment and that comment verbatim. The reader should also be aware that all the issues in the article aren’t addressed and that, of the six links provided by “granite” to substantiate his case, four are broken, (”Page not found,” etc.) Make of that what you will.
Refutations of this refuter, (which, by the way, is in fact a word unlike “refudiate”), are invited. . .
(Read "granite's" full comment at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1896)
Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One
Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One
So much has been written and said about so-called “Birthers,” those people who question Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” and so-called “Truthers,” those who question the official account of the events on September 11th, 2001, that it’s nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The wheat, that is, the truth, is there, somewhere buried deep beneath all the chaff, the baloney and propaganda, but unearthing that truth is no simple matter for someone who has never subscribed to either the Birther or Truther alleged conspiracies.
Let’s immediately dispel the most common slander employed against the Birthers namely that they’re racists who cooked up the whole Obama birth controversy out of their antagonism toward the first black president in America’s history.
There is no substantive proof of a racist motivation on the part of Birthers. That charge of racism has been used from the beginning of Obama’s candidacy to dismiss virtually all who speak ill of the man, his beliefs, or his policies.
It’s an excellent, if underhanded, ploy when you think about it, deftly tossing the racist card into the campaign mix whenever someone criticized Obama. Rarely tossed overtly, it was more often implicit and probably garnered a few million white votes cast by those who wanted desparately to assure themselves and others that they weren’t racists.
It’s also more than curious that the MSM fell all over itself dismissing and ridiculing Birthers with no real effort to investigate their contentions and standpoint, much like they did with interrelated rumors that Obama was really a Muslim and as they subsequently did with regard to the Tea Party Movement.
That failure alone is reason enough to give at least some credence to the Birthers.
(Incidentally, there’s no substantive proof, either, that Birthers are a disturbed product of a resurrection of Hillary Clinton’s “vast, right wing conspiracy.”)
As a non-Birther, I figured going directly to the source was the best bet toward determining just how valid a case the Birthers made for their view that Barack Hussein Obama was a poseur not constitutionally-entitled to the presidency no matter how many votes he received . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1894)
So much has been written and said about so-called “Birthers,” those people who question Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” and so-called “Truthers,” those who question the official account of the events on September 11th, 2001, that it’s nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The wheat, that is, the truth, is there, somewhere buried deep beneath all the chaff, the baloney and propaganda, but unearthing that truth is no simple matter for someone who has never subscribed to either the Birther or Truther alleged conspiracies.
Let’s immediately dispel the most common slander employed against the Birthers namely that they’re racists who cooked up the whole Obama birth controversy out of their antagonism toward the first black president in America’s history.
There is no substantive proof of a racist motivation on the part of Birthers. That charge of racism has been used from the beginning of Obama’s candidacy to dismiss virtually all who speak ill of the man, his beliefs, or his policies.
It’s an excellent, if underhanded, ploy when you think about it, deftly tossing the racist card into the campaign mix whenever someone criticized Obama. Rarely tossed overtly, it was more often implicit and probably garnered a few million white votes cast by those who wanted desparately to assure themselves and others that they weren’t racists.
It’s also more than curious that the MSM fell all over itself dismissing and ridiculing Birthers with no real effort to investigate their contentions and standpoint, much like they did with interrelated rumors that Obama was really a Muslim and as they subsequently did with regard to the Tea Party Movement.
That failure alone is reason enough to give at least some credence to the Birthers.
(Incidentally, there’s no substantive proof, either, that Birthers are a disturbed product of a resurrection of Hillary Clinton’s “vast, right wing conspiracy.”)
As a non-Birther, I figured going directly to the source was the best bet toward determining just how valid a case the Birthers made for their view that Barack Hussein Obama was a poseur not constitutionally-entitled to the presidency no matter how many votes he received . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1894)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Observations: China and Face, Climate and Truth
Observations: China and Face, Climate and Truth
China Loses Face: We’ve all heard the old saw that booze is a truth serum meaning that if you really want to know what someone is thinking, get him drunk and he’ll tell you probably more than you want to know.
Top Chinese United Nations diplomat Sha Zukang got pie-eyed, tanked, snookered, drunk as a skunk while retreating with other U.N. big shots at their retreat at Alpbach, an Austrian ski resort, this week and spilled his guts.
Whether it was during some après-ski or pre-ski or non-ski festivities, Zukang let his hair down and brought to mind another old saw or maxim, to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Even as the Chinese continue to ramp up their military, (purely for self-defense, mind you, with nary a thought of war), and fill Walmart shelves with their cheap, semi-slave-labor-produced consumer goodies that Americans lap up, they smile at us in their enigmatic way that makes you wonder what they’re really smiling at.
Sha Zukang, U.N. Under-secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, however, probably wasn’t smiling when he let loose a 15-minute tirade against his boss, Ban Ki-moon, and the United States. And this was during a toast, not a roast!
Sha wasn’t being very social or diplomatic when he said to the Secretary-General, “You’ve been trying to get rid of me. You can fire me anytime, you can fire me today,” turning later to an American present and adding, “I really don’t like him: he’s an American and I really don’t like Americans.”
Hmmm, vedy interesting.
It wasn’t the first time the loose-lipped Sha had spilled on Americans: “In a BBC interview in 2006 he was goaded into a furious, shrieking attack on American criticisms of China’s rapidly growing defence budget.”
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1892)
China Loses Face: We’ve all heard the old saw that booze is a truth serum meaning that if you really want to know what someone is thinking, get him drunk and he’ll tell you probably more than you want to know.
Top Chinese United Nations diplomat Sha Zukang got pie-eyed, tanked, snookered, drunk as a skunk while retreating with other U.N. big shots at their retreat at Alpbach, an Austrian ski resort, this week and spilled his guts.
Whether it was during some après-ski or pre-ski or non-ski festivities, Zukang let his hair down and brought to mind another old saw or maxim, to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Even as the Chinese continue to ramp up their military, (purely for self-defense, mind you, with nary a thought of war), and fill Walmart shelves with their cheap, semi-slave-labor-produced consumer goodies that Americans lap up, they smile at us in their enigmatic way that makes you wonder what they’re really smiling at.
Sha Zukang, U.N. Under-secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, however, probably wasn’t smiling when he let loose a 15-minute tirade against his boss, Ban Ki-moon, and the United States. And this was during a toast, not a roast!
Sha wasn’t being very social or diplomatic when he said to the Secretary-General, “You’ve been trying to get rid of me. You can fire me anytime, you can fire me today,” turning later to an American present and adding, “I really don’t like him: he’s an American and I really don’t like Americans.”
Hmmm, vedy interesting.
It wasn’t the first time the loose-lipped Sha had spilled on Americans: “In a BBC interview in 2006 he was goaded into a furious, shrieking attack on American criticisms of China’s rapidly growing defence budget.”
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1892)
"Meet Me in the Stairwell"--A Prayer for 9/11
(Received as an email)
"Meet Me in the Stairwell"--A Prayer for 9/11
“Meet Me in the Stairwell”
You say you will never forget where you were when
you heard the news On September 11, 2001.
Neither will I.
I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room
with a man who called his wife to say ‘Good-Bye.’ I
held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the
peace to say, ‘Honey, I am not going to make it, but it
is OK. . . I am ready to go.’
I was with his wife when he called as she fed
breakfast to their children. I held her up as she
tried to understand his words and as she realized
he wasn’t coming home that night.
I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a
woman cried out to Me for help. ‘I have been
knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!’ I said.
‘Of course I will show you the way home - only
believe in Me now.’
I was at the base of the building with the Priest
ministering to the injured and devastated souls.
I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He
heard my voice and answered. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1891)
"Meet Me in the Stairwell"--A Prayer for 9/11
“Meet Me in the Stairwell”
You say you will never forget where you were when
you heard the news On September 11, 2001.
Neither will I.
I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room
with a man who called his wife to say ‘Good-Bye.’ I
held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the
peace to say, ‘Honey, I am not going to make it, but it
is OK. . . I am ready to go.’
I was with his wife when he called as she fed
breakfast to their children. I held her up as she
tried to understand his words and as she realized
he wasn’t coming home that night.
I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a
woman cried out to Me for help. ‘I have been
knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!’ I said.
‘Of course I will show you the way home - only
believe in Me now.’
I was at the base of the building with the Priest
ministering to the injured and devastated souls.
I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He
heard my voice and answered. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1891)
3 Retrospectives on the World Trade Center
3 Retrospectives on the World Trade Center
The utter destruction of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists on September 11th, 2001, the attack on the Pentagon, and the failed attack that ended in a barren Pennsylvania field that same day will long be remembered and long be the subject of books, articles, poems, anecdotes, remembrances, movies, documentaries as well as rumors, innuendos, and outright lies.
Without diminishing the tragedies in Washington or in Shanksville, by the sheer force of the death toll in New York City, the attacks on the WTC must be considered the greatest loss America suffered nine years ago.
The venerable, New York-based television series, “Naked City,” used to begin with the narrator’s words, “There are eight million stories in the naked city.” Following are three more which help capture the reactions, lack of reactions, and feelings of residents of that same city nine years ago. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1890)
The utter destruction of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists on September 11th, 2001, the attack on the Pentagon, and the failed attack that ended in a barren Pennsylvania field that same day will long be remembered and long be the subject of books, articles, poems, anecdotes, remembrances, movies, documentaries as well as rumors, innuendos, and outright lies.
Without diminishing the tragedies in Washington or in Shanksville, by the sheer force of the death toll in New York City, the attacks on the WTC must be considered the greatest loss America suffered nine years ago.
The venerable, New York-based television series, “Naked City,” used to begin with the narrator’s words, “There are eight million stories in the naked city.” Following are three more which help capture the reactions, lack of reactions, and feelings of residents of that same city nine years ago. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1890)
Thursday, September 9, 2010
News Melange: ICE, Fidel, Rodney King
News Melange: ICE, Fidel, Rodney King
From the Good News/Bad News Department: The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, affectionately known as ICE, announced that as of September 5, 2010 it had apprehended 506,232 illegal aliens over the course of about 10 months. That’s about 50,623 bad guys and gals per month nabbed by the agency, which is pretty outstanding enforcement.
That’s the good news.
The bad news about ICE, which could also be termed the TBA, for Teats on a Bull Agency, is that they also announced they had released 506,232 illegal aliens who are now no longer considered illegal aliens but rather fugitive aliens.
ICE/TBA takes a curious approach to law enforcement and fulfilling its mission; its approach is founded on placing trust in its apprehendees.
In effect, our federal agents say to the criminal, illegal aliens, “Now, you be good, okay? Just show up on the appointed day so we can have a hearing and deport you. Got that?” The illegals gladly say, “Si, senor!” and are never seen or heard from again,. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1889)
From the Good News/Bad News Department: The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, affectionately known as ICE, announced that as of September 5, 2010 it had apprehended 506,232 illegal aliens over the course of about 10 months. That’s about 50,623 bad guys and gals per month nabbed by the agency, which is pretty outstanding enforcement.
That’s the good news.
The bad news about ICE, which could also be termed the TBA, for Teats on a Bull Agency, is that they also announced they had released 506,232 illegal aliens who are now no longer considered illegal aliens but rather fugitive aliens.
ICE/TBA takes a curious approach to law enforcement and fulfilling its mission; its approach is founded on placing trust in its apprehendees.
In effect, our federal agents say to the criminal, illegal aliens, “Now, you be good, okay? Just show up on the appointed day so we can have a hearing and deport you. Got that?” The illegals gladly say, “Si, senor!” and are never seen or heard from again,. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1889)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Fareed Zakaria: America's Resident Muslim Quisling
Fareed Zakaria: America's Resident Muslim Quisling
(The first part of this article is an excerpt from "An Immodest Proposal for Ending and Winning the War on Terror." It directly relates to recent comments and actions by Fareed Zakaria.)
“An immigrant from Mumbai, India, Fareed Zakaria is well-credentialed: editor of Newsweek International, bestselling author, television commentator, regular contributor to The New Republic and to the webzine Slate, and host of a weekly PBS program. A truly impressive resume’ indeed.
Zakaria is also a Muslim although that doesn’t seem to cast any doubt on his objectivity involving a war between the West and Islam even if he has repeatedly exhibited pro-Muslim sentiments.
Zakaria outlined his beliefs in an article, ‘Beyond Bush, What the World Needs Is an Open Confident America,’ He believes that wiretapping mosques in the United States would jeopardize the assimilation of Muslims. He derided Rep. Tom Tancredo’s idea that in the event Islamic terrorists strike the United States we ‘take out’ Mecca. He lauded then-Senator Obama’s approach that if we suffer nuclear attacks we should consult an emergency response manual and try to assemble a coalition to respond. Most astoundingly, he supported a policy of ‘resilience’ which presupposes nuclear attacks on our soil after which we can ‘bounce back from a disruption’ : http://tiny.cc/yw5yz
He also believes America “over-reacted” to 9/11: http://tiny.cc/iv0h2
Fareed Zakaria should be sat down and tutored in a few basic truths, however mean-spirited they may seem. First, Americans value human life, unlike Calcuttans, and Mumbains, and Muslims. Second, response delayed is no response at all and pausing to assemble a coalition following nuclear strikes on our soil would be an open invitation to repeated attacks. Third, a nuclear attack is not simply a ‘disruption’ such as a work stoppage by New York City or Mumbain taxi drivers.
Mr. Zakaria may be an excellent journalist but, if he truly believes all he writes, he hasn’t learned much about his adoptive country.
Barbarians can be very nasty people. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1887)
(The first part of this article is an excerpt from "An Immodest Proposal for Ending and Winning the War on Terror." It directly relates to recent comments and actions by Fareed Zakaria.)
“An immigrant from Mumbai, India, Fareed Zakaria is well-credentialed: editor of Newsweek International, bestselling author, television commentator, regular contributor to The New Republic and to the webzine Slate, and host of a weekly PBS program. A truly impressive resume’ indeed.
Zakaria is also a Muslim although that doesn’t seem to cast any doubt on his objectivity involving a war between the West and Islam even if he has repeatedly exhibited pro-Muslim sentiments.
Zakaria outlined his beliefs in an article, ‘Beyond Bush, What the World Needs Is an Open Confident America,’ He believes that wiretapping mosques in the United States would jeopardize the assimilation of Muslims. He derided Rep. Tom Tancredo’s idea that in the event Islamic terrorists strike the United States we ‘take out’ Mecca. He lauded then-Senator Obama’s approach that if we suffer nuclear attacks we should consult an emergency response manual and try to assemble a coalition to respond. Most astoundingly, he supported a policy of ‘resilience’ which presupposes nuclear attacks on our soil after which we can ‘bounce back from a disruption’ : http://tiny.cc/yw5yz
He also believes America “over-reacted” to 9/11: http://tiny.cc/iv0h2
Fareed Zakaria should be sat down and tutored in a few basic truths, however mean-spirited they may seem. First, Americans value human life, unlike Calcuttans, and Mumbains, and Muslims. Second, response delayed is no response at all and pausing to assemble a coalition following nuclear strikes on our soil would be an open invitation to repeated attacks. Third, a nuclear attack is not simply a ‘disruption’ such as a work stoppage by New York City or Mumbain taxi drivers.
Mr. Zakaria may be an excellent journalist but, if he truly believes all he writes, he hasn’t learned much about his adoptive country.
Barbarians can be very nasty people. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1887)
Imam Rauf, Burning Q'urans, and 9/11
Imam Rauf, Burning Q'urans, and 9/11
With the ninth anniversary of the deadly, unprovoked, sneak attack by Muslims–in PC language, the attack by a small band of disaffected Islamic militants–fast approaching, the noxious vermin are crawling out of the woodwork to do what vermin do best, spread pestilence.
Imam Rauf and the Mosque: We’ve heard a great deal of late of the particular vermin that plan to crown the great Islamic victory of September 11th, 2001 by doing what Muslims are wont to do after great victories. Islam, Muslims, have traditionally emphasized their victories by erecting monuments, grand mosques, near or on the sites of those conquests.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf plans to follow that tradition and add an extra-special exclamation point to the Islamic victory of 9/11 by not only building his monster mosque in proximity to the sacred ground of Ground Zero but by planning to open it, no doubt with great fanfare, ten years to the day after that great Islamic victory.
If nothing else, we have to grant Rauf the twenty first century’s Outstanding Chutzpa Award, an award conferred in recognition of his temerity, sense of ironic timing, and gross insensitivity to the still-open wounds of the survivors of 9/11 and their loved ones.
For a self-designated, peace-making bridge between Islam and the West, Rauf is astoundingly impervious to all sense of reason on his mosque, which he has every legal right to build even though by building it he will be infuriating millions of Americans.
His failure to realize that is one possibility that may be circulating in the imam’s brain.
The other possibility . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1866)
With the ninth anniversary of the deadly, unprovoked, sneak attack by Muslims–in PC language, the attack by a small band of disaffected Islamic militants–fast approaching, the noxious vermin are crawling out of the woodwork to do what vermin do best, spread pestilence.
Imam Rauf and the Mosque: We’ve heard a great deal of late of the particular vermin that plan to crown the great Islamic victory of September 11th, 2001 by doing what Muslims are wont to do after great victories. Islam, Muslims, have traditionally emphasized their victories by erecting monuments, grand mosques, near or on the sites of those conquests.
Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf plans to follow that tradition and add an extra-special exclamation point to the Islamic victory of 9/11 by not only building his monster mosque in proximity to the sacred ground of Ground Zero but by planning to open it, no doubt with great fanfare, ten years to the day after that great Islamic victory.
If nothing else, we have to grant Rauf the twenty first century’s Outstanding Chutzpa Award, an award conferred in recognition of his temerity, sense of ironic timing, and gross insensitivity to the still-open wounds of the survivors of 9/11 and their loved ones.
For a self-designated, peace-making bridge between Islam and the West, Rauf is astoundingly impervious to all sense of reason on his mosque, which he has every legal right to build even though by building it he will be infuriating millions of Americans.
His failure to realize that is one possibility that may be circulating in the imam’s brain.
The other possibility . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1866)
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A Reader's Comment on the USS Liberty Controversy
A Reader's Comment on the USS Liberty Controversy
“I assist in the USS Liberty Cover Up web site and have concluded that nothing annoys and drives the Israel First-Liberty apologist crowd nuts [as much as] facts and the mention of the deliberate attack of the ship. If you believe that the attack was without premeditation then you could easily justify that Pearl Harbor was non-intentional by the logic and reasons used by apologists.
“It should be noted that Israel accepted responsibility for the incident and paid millions to the families of those that died, those that were injured and to cover damage to the vessel itself.
“Standard apologist similar boilerplate above for years has claimed this. The families of the dead were not paid until 1968, the wounded were not paid until 1969, Ship damages of only ’six million’ were not paid until Dec. 18, 1980 until James Ennes exposed the non payment of 13 years in his 1979 book, Assault on the Liberty.
“George Ball, Kennedy and LBJ Under Secretary of State said: ‘In the end, the Israelis tendered a reluctant and graceless apology; indemnities for the victims and damaged ship were both parsimonious and slow in coming.’
“Israel’s Naval Museum in some classless and some convoluted pride displays the MTB’s bell and helm that fired the torpedo that killed 25 Liberty crew but to their credit does not advertise this or mention the attack in the display. Do they know what their vessel did that warrants such a display? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1883)
“I assist in the USS Liberty Cover Up web site and have concluded that nothing annoys and drives the Israel First-Liberty apologist crowd nuts [as much as] facts and the mention of the deliberate attack of the ship. If you believe that the attack was without premeditation then you could easily justify that Pearl Harbor was non-intentional by the logic and reasons used by apologists.
“It should be noted that Israel accepted responsibility for the incident and paid millions to the families of those that died, those that were injured and to cover damage to the vessel itself.
“Standard apologist similar boilerplate above for years has claimed this. The families of the dead were not paid until 1968, the wounded were not paid until 1969, Ship damages of only ’six million’ were not paid until Dec. 18, 1980 until James Ennes exposed the non payment of 13 years in his 1979 book, Assault on the Liberty.
“George Ball, Kennedy and LBJ Under Secretary of State said: ‘In the end, the Israelis tendered a reluctant and graceless apology; indemnities for the victims and damaged ship were both parsimonious and slow in coming.’
“Israel’s Naval Museum in some classless and some convoluted pride displays the MTB’s bell and helm that fired the torpedo that killed 25 Liberty crew but to their credit does not advertise this or mention the attack in the display. Do they know what their vessel did that warrants such a display? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1883)
Monday, September 6, 2010
UPDATES: Niggardly Muslims and Cowardly Police
UPDATES: Niggardly Muslims and Cowardly Police
What you see isn’t necessarily what you get.
We all know that things are not always what they appear to be, that reality often differs greatly from posturing claims. Such is the case with Muslim nations and what they say versus what they actually do and the Des Moines Police Department and how it deals with black racism.
A) From “Islamic Insights into Islam,” August 21st, 2010:
“One would think that fellow Islamic nations, a number of which are wealthy beyond imagining, would be lined up to offer financial and humanitarian assistance to the millions of Pakistanis [suffering from recent, record floods].
“If one so thought, one would be miserably wrong. What aid is being sent is predominantly provided by private Muslim groups and charities, not Muslim countries which, for the most part, are practicing a policy of benign neglect toward Islamic Pakistan.”
Ostensibly disproving that contention, comes this claim: “The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) says Muslim countries, organizations and individuals have pledged nearly $1 billion in response to the Pakistan flood emergency, and Pakistan’s prime minister says Saudi Arabia has overtaken the U.S. in responding to the crisis.”
Very generous, indeed, and I would have had to extend an abject apology to Muslim nations for my error–except for the reality: ”But figures made available by the United Nations call both claims into question. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, none of the OIC’s 56 member states have contributed–or pledged–donations reaching the double-digit millions:” http://tiny.cc/hqrtx
According to the U.N., 15 of the 56 have contributed or pledged . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1884)
What you see isn’t necessarily what you get.
We all know that things are not always what they appear to be, that reality often differs greatly from posturing claims. Such is the case with Muslim nations and what they say versus what they actually do and the Des Moines Police Department and how it deals with black racism.
A) From “Islamic Insights into Islam,” August 21st, 2010:
“One would think that fellow Islamic nations, a number of which are wealthy beyond imagining, would be lined up to offer financial and humanitarian assistance to the millions of Pakistanis [suffering from recent, record floods].
“If one so thought, one would be miserably wrong. What aid is being sent is predominantly provided by private Muslim groups and charities, not Muslim countries which, for the most part, are practicing a policy of benign neglect toward Islamic Pakistan.”
Ostensibly disproving that contention, comes this claim: “The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) says Muslim countries, organizations and individuals have pledged nearly $1 billion in response to the Pakistan flood emergency, and Pakistan’s prime minister says Saudi Arabia has overtaken the U.S. in responding to the crisis.”
Very generous, indeed, and I would have had to extend an abject apology to Muslim nations for my error–except for the reality: ”But figures made available by the United Nations call both claims into question. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, none of the OIC’s 56 member states have contributed–or pledged–donations reaching the double-digit millions:” http://tiny.cc/hqrtx
According to the U.N., 15 of the 56 have contributed or pledged . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1884)
Ecoterrorism, Ted Kazinsky, and James Jay Lee
Ecoterrorism, Ted Kazinsky, and James Jay Lee
The Unabomber–remember him?–was treated more benignly and received less negative press than just about any serial murderer in American history.
Dr. Theodore John “Ted” Kazynski killed 3 people and injured 23 over two decades beginning in 1978, ending in 1995. Characteristic of his treatment by liberals, the left-leaning Wikipedia, while mentioning that killing spree, describes Kazynski as “an American mathematician and social critic” and “intellectual child prodigy,” within the first 58 words of its Ted Kazinsky article.
In other words, he may have been a murderer but he had redeeming values, especially that “social critic” feature.
Kazinsky wasn’t labelled an “ecoterrorist” primarily because that term had yet to be invented but he may be regarded as the inspirational godfather of ecoterrorism, the blazer of eco-trails who was followed by equally-disturbed psychopaths who got off by acts of arson, sabotage, bombing, and tree-spiking.
By coercion and threats of more killings via his chosen and cowardly technique of mail bombings, Kazynski succeeeded in having authorities publish his “Unabomber Manifesto,” the “fatal conclusion” of which has been summarized as: “Technological society is incompatible with individual freedom and must therefore be destroyed and replaced by primitive society so that people will be free again:” http://tiny.cc/10b2w
Paraphrased, Kazynski was saying that people can only attain true freedom, be free at last, if advanced societies return to the pre-Industrial Revolution Age–and return to the times of horse manure-filled streets, unchecked disease, lifespans of 40 years or so, astronomical infant mortality, reading by candlelight, etc.
Nice vision there, Ted! Sort of like life in Somalia today, the existence that today’s extreme Greens would love.
After being captured and diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, the Unabomber was tried, convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
Fast forward to September, 2010 and James Jay Lee, a 43 year old extreme green who was inspired by the Goreacle’s very imaginative and grossly incorrect film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1882)
The Unabomber–remember him?–was treated more benignly and received less negative press than just about any serial murderer in American history.
Dr. Theodore John “Ted” Kazynski killed 3 people and injured 23 over two decades beginning in 1978, ending in 1995. Characteristic of his treatment by liberals, the left-leaning Wikipedia, while mentioning that killing spree, describes Kazynski as “an American mathematician and social critic” and “intellectual child prodigy,” within the first 58 words of its Ted Kazinsky article.
In other words, he may have been a murderer but he had redeeming values, especially that “social critic” feature.
Kazinsky wasn’t labelled an “ecoterrorist” primarily because that term had yet to be invented but he may be regarded as the inspirational godfather of ecoterrorism, the blazer of eco-trails who was followed by equally-disturbed psychopaths who got off by acts of arson, sabotage, bombing, and tree-spiking.
By coercion and threats of more killings via his chosen and cowardly technique of mail bombings, Kazynski succeeeded in having authorities publish his “Unabomber Manifesto,” the “fatal conclusion” of which has been summarized as: “Technological society is incompatible with individual freedom and must therefore be destroyed and replaced by primitive society so that people will be free again:” http://tiny.cc/10b2w
Paraphrased, Kazynski was saying that people can only attain true freedom, be free at last, if advanced societies return to the pre-Industrial Revolution Age–and return to the times of horse manure-filled streets, unchecked disease, lifespans of 40 years or so, astronomical infant mortality, reading by candlelight, etc.
Nice vision there, Ted! Sort of like life in Somalia today, the existence that today’s extreme Greens would love.
After being captured and diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, the Unabomber was tried, convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
Fast forward to September, 2010 and James Jay Lee, a 43 year old extreme green who was inspired by the Goreacle’s very imaginative and grossly incorrect film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1882)
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The USS Liberty: Israel's Defenders Stage a Counterattack
The USS Liberty: Israel's Defenders Stage a Counterattack
A bit of a brouhaha. A mini tempest in a teapot. A minor hulabaloo. Much ado about nothing.
All of the above describe the second set of reactions to my articles on the USS Liberty as reprinted on AmericanConservativeDaily.com, and all of which were anticipated.
It seems as if whenever I dare cite evidence with regard to Israel’s 1967 attack on the Liberty it stirs up great angst in certain sectors of the citizenry. I haven’t yet been accused of being an anti-Semite because of my views but just give it time. It’s just coincidental, I’m sure, but the last time I dealt with this topic my blogsite was assaulted with malware.
As I said, just a coincidence.
Three comments on ACD with my [bracketed] rebuttals.
3 Responses to “The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs. Official Lies”
Jaffrin Spes on September 4th, 2010 9:23 am
You’re hysterical in more ways than one Gene. First you are hysterical in the funny sense as anyone that reads my comments will clearly see that I was not “irate” as you claim to avoid actually addressing the facts. Secondly you are hysterical in the sense that, well you are just hysterical over the fact that someone would dare provide facts instead of conspiracy theories. [Maybe it’s just me but comments such as, “Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed,” smack of sarcasm which is a product of ire. Furthermore, those facts that “Jaffrin Spes” craves were more than adequately furnished in the words of such notables as Dean Rusk, Richard Helms, Oliver Kirby, Richard F. Kiepfer, and eyewitness and crew member of the Liberty, Rick Aimetti. That is, unless “Jaffrin Spes” considers a Secretary of State, a head of the CIA, an NSA Deputy Director, and two Liberty survivors as equally “silly” and/or liars.]
Black Con on September 4th, 2010 12:56 pm
Gene, I followed your last post and saw this comment you are referring to. How you jumped to the conclusion that his comments were “irate” really boggles my mind. It seems to me that you are acting very defense. [See above]
Actually Gene the theories if [sic] MIHOP and LIHOP do pertain to this incident although [sic] Since they also refer . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1881)
A bit of a brouhaha. A mini tempest in a teapot. A minor hulabaloo. Much ado about nothing.
All of the above describe the second set of reactions to my articles on the USS Liberty as reprinted on AmericanConservativeDaily.com, and all of which were anticipated.
It seems as if whenever I dare cite evidence with regard to Israel’s 1967 attack on the Liberty it stirs up great angst in certain sectors of the citizenry. I haven’t yet been accused of being an anti-Semite because of my views but just give it time. It’s just coincidental, I’m sure, but the last time I dealt with this topic my blogsite was assaulted with malware.
As I said, just a coincidence.
Three comments on ACD with my [bracketed] rebuttals.
3 Responses to “The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs. Official Lies”
Jaffrin Spes on September 4th, 2010 9:23 am
You’re hysterical in more ways than one Gene. First you are hysterical in the funny sense as anyone that reads my comments will clearly see that I was not “irate” as you claim to avoid actually addressing the facts. Secondly you are hysterical in the sense that, well you are just hysterical over the fact that someone would dare provide facts instead of conspiracy theories. [Maybe it’s just me but comments such as, “Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed,” smack of sarcasm which is a product of ire. Furthermore, those facts that “Jaffrin Spes” craves were more than adequately furnished in the words of such notables as Dean Rusk, Richard Helms, Oliver Kirby, Richard F. Kiepfer, and eyewitness and crew member of the Liberty, Rick Aimetti. That is, unless “Jaffrin Spes” considers a Secretary of State, a head of the CIA, an NSA Deputy Director, and two Liberty survivors as equally “silly” and/or liars.]
Black Con on September 4th, 2010 12:56 pm
Gene, I followed your last post and saw this comment you are referring to. How you jumped to the conclusion that his comments were “irate” really boggles my mind. It seems to me that you are acting very defense. [See above]
Actually Gene the theories if [sic] MIHOP and LIHOP do pertain to this incident although [sic] Since they also refer . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1881)
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs Official Lies
The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs Official Lies
Not unexpectedly, an apparently irate reader of “A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty” also spoke out on the “USS Liberty Incident” on AmericanConservativeDaily.com where this blog is syndicated.
Writing as if he were someone in the know, “Jaffrin Spes” wrote on ACD that, “The reason Israel was never condemned for the attack is because the U.S. Naval Court Inquiry in 1967 determined the attack was a case of mistaken identity. The CIA’s intelligence report of the same year determined there was no malice intended but, as often happened in war, the target was failed to be properly identified. This is hardly a new problem as even during the Iraq War many U.S. soldiers were killed by friendly fire because of misidentification.
Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed.”
Being something of a silly dolt, I admit I had to research LIHOP, (”Let It Happen on Purpose”) and MIHOP, (”Make It Happen on Purpose”), two levels of conspiracy theories I discovered are most often applied to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001.
I can assure “Jaffrin Spes” that there is no valid comparison between those poppycock theories and the events of June 8th, 1967.
To be precise, “Jaffrin Spes’ ” citing of that U.S. Naval Court Inquiry and the CIA report is a further example of the cover-up that refuses to go away and is testimony to the effectiveness of that cover-up even after 43 years. To be more blunt, “Jaffrin Spes” must be functioning in one of three roles: a governmental front, a blind apologist for Israel, or a terminally naive indidividual.
Or, maybe, a combination of all three?
The article in question, http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/, was primarily intended to present the impressions of one “C.K. Amos,” “Darwin,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1880)
Not unexpectedly, an apparently irate reader of “A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty” also spoke out on the “USS Liberty Incident” on AmericanConservativeDaily.com where this blog is syndicated.
Writing as if he were someone in the know, “Jaffrin Spes” wrote on ACD that, “The reason Israel was never condemned for the attack is because the U.S. Naval Court Inquiry in 1967 determined the attack was a case of mistaken identity. The CIA’s intelligence report of the same year determined there was no malice intended but, as often happened in war, the target was failed to be properly identified. This is hardly a new problem as even during the Iraq War many U.S. soldiers were killed by friendly fire because of misidentification.
Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed.”
Being something of a silly dolt, I admit I had to research LIHOP, (”Let It Happen on Purpose”) and MIHOP, (”Make It Happen on Purpose”), two levels of conspiracy theories I discovered are most often applied to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001.
I can assure “Jaffrin Spes” that there is no valid comparison between those poppycock theories and the events of June 8th, 1967.
To be precise, “Jaffrin Spes’ ” citing of that U.S. Naval Court Inquiry and the CIA report is a further example of the cover-up that refuses to go away and is testimony to the effectiveness of that cover-up even after 43 years. To be more blunt, “Jaffrin Spes” must be functioning in one of three roles: a governmental front, a blind apologist for Israel, or a terminally naive indidividual.
Or, maybe, a combination of all three?
The article in question, http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/, was primarily intended to present the impressions of one “C.K. Amos,” “Darwin,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1880)
Friday, September 3, 2010
A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty
A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty
. . . Briefly, on a clear June 8th, 1967 afternoon in international waters off the Sinai Peninsula, the American surveillance ship was repeatedly attacked, strafed and torpedoed by the Israeli air force and navy. The Six Day War was in progress at the time and the ship was flying the U.S. colors. When the attacks were over hours later, 34 officers and seamen of the Liberty lay dead with another 174 injured and maimed. Though seriously damaged, the ship remained afloat.
Since the event, various inquiries and investigations have been conducted, testimony from eye witnesses has been taken, and various medals have been awarded but neither the Navy nor our government has ever condemned Israel for the unprovoked attack.
Some years later, after numerous denials of culpability, Israel did pay reparations while still denying responsibility. Yet, still, there were no official recriminations or even mild criticisms of Israel forthcoming.
The central issue surrounding the Liberty may be summarized as follows: Either the survivors had all conspired to lie about what they had witnessed first-hand or our navy and government had conspired to engage in a massive cover-up in order to protect Israel, ostensibly an ally, from public repercussions. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1878)
. . . Briefly, on a clear June 8th, 1967 afternoon in international waters off the Sinai Peninsula, the American surveillance ship was repeatedly attacked, strafed and torpedoed by the Israeli air force and navy. The Six Day War was in progress at the time and the ship was flying the U.S. colors. When the attacks were over hours later, 34 officers and seamen of the Liberty lay dead with another 174 injured and maimed. Though seriously damaged, the ship remained afloat.
Since the event, various inquiries and investigations have been conducted, testimony from eye witnesses has been taken, and various medals have been awarded but neither the Navy nor our government has ever condemned Israel for the unprovoked attack.
Some years later, after numerous denials of culpability, Israel did pay reparations while still denying responsibility. Yet, still, there were no official recriminations or even mild criticisms of Israel forthcoming.
The central issue surrounding the Liberty may be summarized as follows: Either the survivors had all conspired to lie about what they had witnessed first-hand or our navy and government had conspired to engage in a massive cover-up in order to protect Israel, ostensibly an ally, from public repercussions. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1878)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
What's a Mother to Do? Part Two: Saving Sheriff Joe
What's a Mother to Do? Part Two: Saving Sheriff Joe
Mother’s Problem Number Two: Saving Sheriff Joe
For those unacquainted with Sheriff Joe, i.e., Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, he’s the law enforcement official most hated by the Mexican drug cartels who have put a million dollar bounty on his head because he’s afflicted with an odd quirk: He insists on doing his job and enforcing the immigration laws of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.
Sheriff Joe is also the law enforcement official most hated by the Obama administration and Eric Holder’s Justice Department who haven’t, as yet, put a bounty on his head and instead harass and threaten him for the same reason, his odd quirk about doing his job and enforcing the immigration laws of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.
It’s as presumptuous of me to suggest saving the tough and independent Sheriff Joe as it is for the DOJ to suggest he cease and desist from repeatedly rounding up Mexican and other illegal aliens in his state and incarcerating them in his tent prison. There they are decked out in pretty pink garb, served adequate but far from sumptuous meals, and expected to behave as prisoners, not as indulged guests of the state.
It’s presumptuous but I’ll do it anyway.
Long a burr under the saddles of everyone from the ACLU to La Raza to every other illegal alien rights group in the nation, Sheriff Joe, the self-described “America’s toughest sheriff,” was issued a second ultimatum last week insisting he “comply with a Justice Department request to explain his office’s ‘operations, policies and procedures’ involving the arrest and detention of Hispanics.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1877)
Mother’s Problem Number Two: Saving Sheriff Joe
For those unacquainted with Sheriff Joe, i.e., Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, he’s the law enforcement official most hated by the Mexican drug cartels who have put a million dollar bounty on his head because he’s afflicted with an odd quirk: He insists on doing his job and enforcing the immigration laws of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.
Sheriff Joe is also the law enforcement official most hated by the Obama administration and Eric Holder’s Justice Department who haven’t, as yet, put a bounty on his head and instead harass and threaten him for the same reason, his odd quirk about doing his job and enforcing the immigration laws of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.
It’s as presumptuous of me to suggest saving the tough and independent Sheriff Joe as it is for the DOJ to suggest he cease and desist from repeatedly rounding up Mexican and other illegal aliens in his state and incarcerating them in his tent prison. There they are decked out in pretty pink garb, served adequate but far from sumptuous meals, and expected to behave as prisoners, not as indulged guests of the state.
It’s presumptuous but I’ll do it anyway.
Long a burr under the saddles of everyone from the ACLU to La Raza to every other illegal alien rights group in the nation, Sheriff Joe, the self-described “America’s toughest sheriff,” was issued a second ultimatum last week insisting he “comply with a Justice Department request to explain his office’s ‘operations, policies and procedures’ involving the arrest and detention of Hispanics.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1877)
Updates: The Mosque and the Glaciers
Update: The Mosque and the Glaciers
Trying to keep up with the news nowadays is like liberals/leftists/”progressives” trying to make sense of their lives and trying to fit themselves into their advertised profile of caring, generous, sensitive lovers of humanity and all things that live on God’s green Earth.
It’s nigh near impossible.
Of course, we should strike the word “God” from that last phrase since most libs/lefts/”progs” either don’t adhere to a belief in the Almighty or don’t believe that He was in any way a participant in making the United States of America the exceptional nation that it still is despite their efforts to alter that.
We should also qualify that concern for “all things living” since pre-born babies don’t count.
Nevertheless, let’s give a shot at keeping abreast of things going on in the world on two fronts, mosques and glaciers:
The Monster Mosque and Its Monstrous Supporters:
The extraordinarily contentious issue of whether Muslims should build a mosque 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero where almost nine years ago other Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center and, by downing those two iconic towers, destroyed 2,996 innocent lives, was brought to a head last week when those who oppose and those who support the mosque gathered to demonstrate their opposition or support.
Islam’s constitutional right to erect such an edifice has never disputed. Islam’s discretion and sensitivity toward the feelings of 9/11 survivors and loved ones and its sensitivities toward every New Yorker or American who died a little that day are the chief issues of contention.
At those Ground Zero rallies on August 22nd, 2010, the two opposing forces met, head to head, virtually mano-a-mano. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1871)
Trying to keep up with the news nowadays is like liberals/leftists/”progressives” trying to make sense of their lives and trying to fit themselves into their advertised profile of caring, generous, sensitive lovers of humanity and all things that live on God’s green Earth.
It’s nigh near impossible.
Of course, we should strike the word “God” from that last phrase since most libs/lefts/”progs” either don’t adhere to a belief in the Almighty or don’t believe that He was in any way a participant in making the United States of America the exceptional nation that it still is despite their efforts to alter that.
We should also qualify that concern for “all things living” since pre-born babies don’t count.
Nevertheless, let’s give a shot at keeping abreast of things going on in the world on two fronts, mosques and glaciers:
The Monster Mosque and Its Monstrous Supporters:
The extraordinarily contentious issue of whether Muslims should build a mosque 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero where almost nine years ago other Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center and, by downing those two iconic towers, destroyed 2,996 innocent lives, was brought to a head last week when those who oppose and those who support the mosque gathered to demonstrate their opposition or support.
Islam’s constitutional right to erect such an edifice has never disputed. Islam’s discretion and sensitivity toward the feelings of 9/11 survivors and loved ones and its sensitivities toward every New Yorker or American who died a little that day are the chief issues of contention.
At those Ground Zero rallies on August 22nd, 2010, the two opposing forces met, head to head, virtually mano-a-mano. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1871)
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The Numbers Game and Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally
The Numbers Game and Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally
The results are in on Saturday’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington and the news isn’t good for the news media.
The MSM seem to become arithmetically-challenged when it comes to counting heads at conservative gatherings or, dare I suggest, once again biased against reporting the truth at those get-togethers for the purpose of slanting their reporting.
It happened just over a year ago at the 2009 “9/12 Project’s” March on Washington organized by former Repubican Rep. Dick Armey, the Freedom Works Foundation, and Glenn Beck which drew upwards of a million participants to D.C. The mainstream media reported that thousands and upwards of 100,000 were in attendance.
Now, that’s a highly significant undercount especially since hundreds of pictures clearly revealed that the crowds were far more massive than “thousands” or even a paltry hundred thousand.
Why the liberal mainstream media feel compelled to lie and distort attendance numbers, inflating liberal rally figures and deflating conservative turn-outs, is no mystery.
That compulsion and that distortion are rooted in a deep-seated insecurity as to the honesty and validity of their leftist beliefs but, even worse, they reflect a contempt for the integrity of their journalistic profession and a total disregard for their ethical responsibilities.
It happened again at the Beck non-partisan Restoring Honor rally last Saturday which by happenstance took place on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s memorable “I Have a Dream” speech and at the same venue of that address, the Lincoln Memorial.
CBS estimated the crowd at 83,000, ABC at “more than 100,000,” NBC said, “tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, the Associated Press described a ”sea of people standing shoulder to shoulder” as a crowd numbering “tens of thousands.” Beck and special guest Sarah Palin guessed anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 and Rep. Michelle Bachman a cool million: http://tiny.cc/zthma
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1874)
The results are in on Saturday’s Restoring Honor rally in Washington and the news isn’t good for the news media.
The MSM seem to become arithmetically-challenged when it comes to counting heads at conservative gatherings or, dare I suggest, once again biased against reporting the truth at those get-togethers for the purpose of slanting their reporting.
It happened just over a year ago at the 2009 “9/12 Project’s” March on Washington organized by former Repubican Rep. Dick Armey, the Freedom Works Foundation, and Glenn Beck which drew upwards of a million participants to D.C. The mainstream media reported that thousands and upwards of 100,000 were in attendance.
Now, that’s a highly significant undercount especially since hundreds of pictures clearly revealed that the crowds were far more massive than “thousands” or even a paltry hundred thousand.
Why the liberal mainstream media feel compelled to lie and distort attendance numbers, inflating liberal rally figures and deflating conservative turn-outs, is no mystery.
That compulsion and that distortion are rooted in a deep-seated insecurity as to the honesty and validity of their leftist beliefs but, even worse, they reflect a contempt for the integrity of their journalistic profession and a total disregard for their ethical responsibilities.
It happened again at the Beck non-partisan Restoring Honor rally last Saturday which by happenstance took place on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s memorable “I Have a Dream” speech and at the same venue of that address, the Lincoln Memorial.
CBS estimated the crowd at 83,000, ABC at “more than 100,000,” NBC said, “tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, the Associated Press described a ”sea of people standing shoulder to shoulder” as a crowd numbering “tens of thousands.” Beck and special guest Sarah Palin guessed anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 and Rep. Michelle Bachman a cool million: http://tiny.cc/zthma
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1874)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)