War on Christmas, the Rhode Island Battlefield
Future Christmas revisionism: “It’s Beginning to Look Like the Holidays.” “Have Yourself a Merry Little Holiday.” “All I Want for the Holidays Is My Two Front Teeth.” “Holidays in Killarney.”
The annual war on Christmas has resumed and a major battle is currently being fought in The Ocean State of Rhode Island.
Perhaps what’s most remarkable about the anti-Christmas forces–and they are formidable forces– is that, despite overwhelming national sentiment in favor of saying and celebrating “Christmas” instead of the generic “holiday,” liberal politicians and their cohorts in the media and among certain segments of the general populace never let up in trying to secularize this time of year.
What’s their problem?
On the one hand, the whole controversy which has been raging for years over a word is silly.
Does it really matter if a tree in the town square is called a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree? Does it matter if Macy’s conducts holiday sales in lieu of Christmas sales? Does it matter if we wish one another, “Happy Holiday!” and not “Merry Christmas?”
On the other hand, if it didn’t matter, why do some people persist in trying to change a long-standing, popular tradition?
A recent Rasmussen Reports survey confirms what the majority of Americans already knew. By a whopping 70%, most of us prefer to celebrate Christmas rather than meaningless holidays. More specifically, seven out of ten opt for store signs wishing shoppers a Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays.
It shouldn’t be such a big deal, but it is, moreso for the grinches than for the traditionalists. The grinch contingent seems obsessed with the need to unnecessarily change what doesn’t need changing.
One rhetorical question is, why? Another is, why are virtually all the grinches liberals? The answers are simple: Liberals despise tradition, especially any tradition that smacks of Christianity, and they are grinchy because their philosophy is inherently devious and intolerant.
Case in point: The Associated Press is reporting that Rhode Island’s liberal governor, Lincoln D. Chafee, in defiance of a symbolic resolution passed by his state’s House of Representatives, is insisting the statehouse 17′ blue spruce scheduled to be lit on December 6th be called a holiday, not a Christmas tree . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7944.)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Barney Frank, R.I.P.
Barney Frank, R.I.P.
No, Barney Frank isn’t dead. He isn’t among the deceased but he is being virtually canonized by Long Island’s resident nitwit congressman Steve Israel as “a champion of American families.”
Rep. Israel has one peculiar concept of “family.”
Called “the most powerful homosexual in Congress,” Barney is merely retiring so he can rest up in peace, away from the slings and arrows of political infighting, his scandal-plagued career, and those meanie Republicans who keep dredging up his complicity in the 2008 banking debacle that led to Obama’s continuing Great Recession.
Barney is surrendering his position as ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, the same committee he headed during the banking meltdown when he and then-Senator Chris Dodd forced financial institutions and their buddies at Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan vast sums of money to people who barely had a pot to pee in.
However, Frank and Dodd felt they should have a shot at the American Dream, and then vote for Frank and Dodd.
Barney’s dream and one of America’s nightmares will be over next year since he has unexpectedly announced he won’t run for re-election after 32 years representing the good, people of the most liberal state in the union, Massachusetts. Democrats will probably turn over his committee job to another class act, Rep. Maxine Waters.
Barney’s reasons for packing it in, so to speak, are debatable.
Although his advancing years and the re-districting of his ultra-safe 4th c.d., home to the leftist bastions of Dartmouth and Wellesley, may have played a part, Barney was somewhat vague in his announcement saying only that he didn’t want to introduce himself to new voters and that he had “other things I’d like to do.”
Good thinking, Barn!
Convincing a whole new electorate that he is still “the liberal lion of the House” and thereby worthy of their vote would be challenging enough for 71 year old Barney. Persuading them that a former owner of a homosexual bordello should represent them could pose an even greater obstacle, even in Massachusetts. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7818.)
No, Barney Frank isn’t dead. He isn’t among the deceased but he is being virtually canonized by Long Island’s resident nitwit congressman Steve Israel as “a champion of American families.”
Rep. Israel has one peculiar concept of “family.”
Called “the most powerful homosexual in Congress,” Barney is merely retiring so he can rest up in peace, away from the slings and arrows of political infighting, his scandal-plagued career, and those meanie Republicans who keep dredging up his complicity in the 2008 banking debacle that led to Obama’s continuing Great Recession.
Barney is surrendering his position as ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, the same committee he headed during the banking meltdown when he and then-Senator Chris Dodd forced financial institutions and their buddies at Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan vast sums of money to people who barely had a pot to pee in.
However, Frank and Dodd felt they should have a shot at the American Dream, and then vote for Frank and Dodd.
Barney’s dream and one of America’s nightmares will be over next year since he has unexpectedly announced he won’t run for re-election after 32 years representing the good, people of the most liberal state in the union, Massachusetts. Democrats will probably turn over his committee job to another class act, Rep. Maxine Waters.
Barney’s reasons for packing it in, so to speak, are debatable.
Although his advancing years and the re-districting of his ultra-safe 4th c.d., home to the leftist bastions of Dartmouth and Wellesley, may have played a part, Barney was somewhat vague in his announcement saying only that he didn’t want to introduce himself to new voters and that he had “other things I’d like to do.”
Good thinking, Barn!
Convincing a whole new electorate that he is still “the liberal lion of the House” and thereby worthy of their vote would be challenging enough for 71 year old Barney. Persuading them that a former owner of a homosexual bordello should represent them could pose an even greater obstacle, even in Massachusetts. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7818.)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Obamacrat Slurs, Snipes, and Smears
Obamacrat Slurs, Snipes, and Smears
The other day, Rush Limbaugh warned whomever eventually wins the Republican nomination for the presidency to be prepared for an avalanche of vicious assaults from the re-elect Obama billion dollar attack machine.
Limbaugh was wrong in one respect: That onslaught began months ago with the only distinction being that the viciousness is mostly emanating from Obama acolytes in his mainstream media rather than directly from the White House.
All this year, we have witnessed every Republican hopeful mercilessly pilloried as soon as he or she gains any traction in the GOP sweepstakes. Pawlenty, Trump, Christie, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain have each had their turn being attacked. If a day goes by without some leftist guttersnipe taking unsubstantiated pot shots at a candidate, Leno and Letterman are ready to ridicule them at night with nasty derision–all in good fun, of course.
The only Republican to escape leftist castigation, relatively, has been Mitt Romney, leading to conjecture that the left wants him to win the nomination because they expect to whup him, just as Carterites were eager to get at Ronald Reagan.
What was it Obama said about the need for more civility? Evidently, the mainstreamers never got that memo.
One of the leaders of the MSM attack pack, the Washington Post, was apparently running out of ammunition with which to abuse the latest target, Newt Gingrich, so WaPo’s Aaron Blake resorted to the internet to gather more dirt. Blake tweeted for his fellow Twitter tweeps to send him all “outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes” by or about Gingrich that they could dig up or make up.
Note: Blake was in search of the “outlandish/incorrect” rather than the truth. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7657.)
The other day, Rush Limbaugh warned whomever eventually wins the Republican nomination for the presidency to be prepared for an avalanche of vicious assaults from the re-elect Obama billion dollar attack machine.
Limbaugh was wrong in one respect: That onslaught began months ago with the only distinction being that the viciousness is mostly emanating from Obama acolytes in his mainstream media rather than directly from the White House.
All this year, we have witnessed every Republican hopeful mercilessly pilloried as soon as he or she gains any traction in the GOP sweepstakes. Pawlenty, Trump, Christie, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain have each had their turn being attacked. If a day goes by without some leftist guttersnipe taking unsubstantiated pot shots at a candidate, Leno and Letterman are ready to ridicule them at night with nasty derision–all in good fun, of course.
The only Republican to escape leftist castigation, relatively, has been Mitt Romney, leading to conjecture that the left wants him to win the nomination because they expect to whup him, just as Carterites were eager to get at Ronald Reagan.
What was it Obama said about the need for more civility? Evidently, the mainstreamers never got that memo.
One of the leaders of the MSM attack pack, the Washington Post, was apparently running out of ammunition with which to abuse the latest target, Newt Gingrich, so WaPo’s Aaron Blake resorted to the internet to gather more dirt. Blake tweeted for his fellow Twitter tweeps to send him all “outlandish/incorrect predictions and quotes” by or about Gingrich that they could dig up or make up.
Note: Blake was in search of the “outlandish/incorrect” rather than the truth. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7657.)
Monday, November 28, 2011
NYT Outs Obama's Class-Race Warfare
NYT Outs Obama's Class-Race Warfare
Sometimes the mainstream media merely substantiate common knowledge and sometimes the New York Times demonstrates a degree of journalistic ethics by publishing that common knowledge instead of always slanting the truth.
Such is the case with Thomas B. Edsall’s piece, “The Future of the Obama Coalition” which appeared in the Times‘ Sunday “Opinion Pages.”
Summarized, that future involves Obama abandoning hopes of again winning anything approaching the 43% of all white votes he won in 2008 “in favor of cementing a center-left coalition.”
According to Edsall, that coalition consists of people generally considered professionals, including everyone from professors to teachers to therapists plus “a substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,” in other words, a coalition composed of two very disparate groups, the highly-educated and the largely uneducated poor.
What Edsall does not incorporate in his article is a recognition that all but Obama’s MSM idolators and those they influenced to vote for him were aware long before the last general election that Barack Hussein Obama was a radical, socialist racist for whom divisiveness and class warfare were tactics he and the Democrat Party would employ when the 2008 coalitions disintegrated.
Oddly, or not so oddly considering Edsall was writing for the Times, he omits any reference to the president’s support for the latest exemplars of socialistic class warmongers, the Occupy Wall Street nutzos.
Three years ago, candidate Obama succeeded in cashing in on white guilt, the oft-denied sentiment which motivated millions of white voters to cast their ballots for him as a form of reparations paid to African-Americans, to demonstrate they were not bigots, to show they were sorry for the national sin of slavery even though none of them had ever owned a slave.
By virtue of that sentiment, the half-black Obama managed to gain 2% more of the white electorate than did John Kerry in 2004. Those voters have witnessed Obama in action for three years now and the president’s handlers realize many of them, hopefully millions of them, refuse to fall for Obama’s charade again.
They have seen his incompetence, his lack of leadership, his rigid, leftist ideology but most of all they have seen through his pretenses of creating a new era of racial harmony. Beneath Obama’s mellifluous, telepromptered words, they have finally seen the black racism that both he and his wife proudly admitted years ago.
In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson expressed her racial attitudes in numerous ways . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7417.)
Sometimes the mainstream media merely substantiate common knowledge and sometimes the New York Times demonstrates a degree of journalistic ethics by publishing that common knowledge instead of always slanting the truth.
Such is the case with Thomas B. Edsall’s piece, “The Future of the Obama Coalition” which appeared in the Times‘ Sunday “Opinion Pages.”
Summarized, that future involves Obama abandoning hopes of again winning anything approaching the 43% of all white votes he won in 2008 “in favor of cementing a center-left coalition.”
According to Edsall, that coalition consists of people generally considered professionals, including everyone from professors to teachers to therapists plus “a substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,” in other words, a coalition composed of two very disparate groups, the highly-educated and the largely uneducated poor.
What Edsall does not incorporate in his article is a recognition that all but Obama’s MSM idolators and those they influenced to vote for him were aware long before the last general election that Barack Hussein Obama was a radical, socialist racist for whom divisiveness and class warfare were tactics he and the Democrat Party would employ when the 2008 coalitions disintegrated.
Oddly, or not so oddly considering Edsall was writing for the Times, he omits any reference to the president’s support for the latest exemplars of socialistic class warmongers, the Occupy Wall Street nutzos.
Three years ago, candidate Obama succeeded in cashing in on white guilt, the oft-denied sentiment which motivated millions of white voters to cast their ballots for him as a form of reparations paid to African-Americans, to demonstrate they were not bigots, to show they were sorry for the national sin of slavery even though none of them had ever owned a slave.
By virtue of that sentiment, the half-black Obama managed to gain 2% more of the white electorate than did John Kerry in 2004. Those voters have witnessed Obama in action for three years now and the president’s handlers realize many of them, hopefully millions of them, refuse to fall for Obama’s charade again.
They have seen his incompetence, his lack of leadership, his rigid, leftist ideology but most of all they have seen through his pretenses of creating a new era of racial harmony. Beneath Obama’s mellifluous, telepromptered words, they have finally seen the black racism that both he and his wife proudly admitted years ago.
In her 1985 Princeton senior thesis, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson expressed her racial attitudes in numerous ways . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7417.)
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Newt
Newt
Former Republican Speaker of the House Newton Leroy Gingrich lugs around almost as much baggage as a former candidate for the presidency lugged around before he won that office in 1992.
The chief difference between Gingrich and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is that the former’s dirty linens will probably deny him the Republican nomination in 2012 and the latter’s less-fastidious Democrats elected him twice.
Both developments are damned shames.
Despite Democrat claims to be the Party of the People, which may have been true when they were led by FDR and the people were desperate and later involved in a war FDR manipulated, since at least 1964 the GOP has better reflected the dominant sentiment of Americans in all matters save failed social experiments.
Over the years, muddled-thinking wags have suggested that the best of all political worlds would see a Democrat in charge of domestic policy and a Republican conducting foreign affairs. Aside from the unconstitutionality of such a scenario, the country would be bankrupted by Democrats and so destitute we would be unable to function beyond our borders.
However, none of that speculation is relevant to a Newt Gingrich presidency since Republicans are more inclined to lose than to hold their noses and vote for a guy who isn’t perfect.
Newt is anything but perfect from a conservative point of view or from any other point of view, although he is nowhere near the insensitive ogre, the grinch the mainstream media has painted him . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7138,)
Former Republican Speaker of the House Newton Leroy Gingrich lugs around almost as much baggage as a former candidate for the presidency lugged around before he won that office in 1992.
The chief difference between Gingrich and William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is that the former’s dirty linens will probably deny him the Republican nomination in 2012 and the latter’s less-fastidious Democrats elected him twice.
Both developments are damned shames.
Despite Democrat claims to be the Party of the People, which may have been true when they were led by FDR and the people were desperate and later involved in a war FDR manipulated, since at least 1964 the GOP has better reflected the dominant sentiment of Americans in all matters save failed social experiments.
Over the years, muddled-thinking wags have suggested that the best of all political worlds would see a Democrat in charge of domestic policy and a Republican conducting foreign affairs. Aside from the unconstitutionality of such a scenario, the country would be bankrupted by Democrats and so destitute we would be unable to function beyond our borders.
However, none of that speculation is relevant to a Newt Gingrich presidency since Republicans are more inclined to lose than to hold their noses and vote for a guy who isn’t perfect.
Newt is anything but perfect from a conservative point of view or from any other point of view, although he is nowhere near the insensitive ogre, the grinch the mainstream media has painted him . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7138,)
Whooping Whoopi Whoops Again!
Whooping Whoopi Whoops Again!
Weeping, whooping Whoopi Goldberg, who doesn’t look even a little bit Jewish and who is virtually idolized by brainless Jews and non-Jews alike during her appearances on “The View,” often gets perturbed.
One would think a Neanderthal would retreat into a cave instead of going public.
A sad excuse for a woman, the Whoopster regularly articulates and reflects her stupidity on ABC’s “The View” and sometimes manages to out-do herself in her efforts at invoking baseless charges of racism at every opportunity, taking umbrage at the truth, and supporting Hollywood pedophiles because they are Hollywood pedophiles.
Goldberg was outraged earlier this year when more civilized African-Americans wisely overlooked her in citing black Oscar winners. She accused black film critics on the New York Times of racism in her omission, an odd accusation unless we consider the source.
She exhibited her ignorance last year when she stormed off “The View” set because she and Joyless Joy Behar disagreed with Bill O’Reilly who had the temerity to suggest Muslims were responsible for 9/11.
She demonstrated her reality-disconnect when she defended child rapist Roman Polanski in 2009 by saying his criminality ”was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”
Anymore than she could define reasons for her inclusion in the top tier of black Oscar winners or defend her antics with O’Reilly, Goldberg failed to precisely explain what a 45 year old drugging and raping a 13 year old could be called if not “rape-rape.” Consensual?
Once again, the Whoopster has shown her insightful expertise . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6835.)
Weeping, whooping Whoopi Goldberg, who doesn’t look even a little bit Jewish and who is virtually idolized by brainless Jews and non-Jews alike during her appearances on “The View,” often gets perturbed.
One would think a Neanderthal would retreat into a cave instead of going public.
A sad excuse for a woman, the Whoopster regularly articulates and reflects her stupidity on ABC’s “The View” and sometimes manages to out-do herself in her efforts at invoking baseless charges of racism at every opportunity, taking umbrage at the truth, and supporting Hollywood pedophiles because they are Hollywood pedophiles.
Goldberg was outraged earlier this year when more civilized African-Americans wisely overlooked her in citing black Oscar winners. She accused black film critics on the New York Times of racism in her omission, an odd accusation unless we consider the source.
She exhibited her ignorance last year when she stormed off “The View” set because she and Joyless Joy Behar disagreed with Bill O’Reilly who had the temerity to suggest Muslims were responsible for 9/11.
She demonstrated her reality-disconnect when she defended child rapist Roman Polanski in 2009 by saying his criminality ”was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”
Anymore than she could define reasons for her inclusion in the top tier of black Oscar winners or defend her antics with O’Reilly, Goldberg failed to precisely explain what a 45 year old drugging and raping a 13 year old could be called if not “rape-rape.” Consensual?
Once again, the Whoopster has shown her insightful expertise . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6835.)
Saturday, November 26, 2011
God and Obama
God and Obama
The nuns used to tell us we couldn’t understand God, information that wasn’t news to eight year olds since we often couldn’t understand the nuns, either.
Still, I eventually picked up on the concept that God was beyond understanding, much like arithmatic, and I accepted the principle of the existence of an Almighty Who, if He wasn’t watching every move we made or taking notes on every time I was impudent, was up there, somewhere, not taking written notes but aware.
Atheists aren’t beset by such mundane concerns since they don’t believe in the existence of any god, opting instead for the belief they and the universe weren’t created but rather are the products of happenstance. Chicken atheists, agnostics, believe only what Thomas the Doubting Apostle believed. They want proof, tantamount to insisting their Creator furnish irrefutable evidence of His existence before they subscribe.
Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama and what he believes.
Few modern presidents have been overtly religious and many seem to have been “Christmas Christians,” men who visit churches on important occasions such as major religious holidays or for funerals of dignitaries.
Some, like Ike, hosted White House observances, others, like Bill Clinton, rarely if ever went to church and made no pretense of being regular attendees, and still others, notably Jimmy Carter, wore their religion on their sleeves right next to his incompetency pin.
None of this is meant to suggest that that a belief in God is a requisite for the position of president of the United States. It’s not mandated in the Constitution which was designed to permit any natural born citizen age 35 and up who has been a permanent resident for a minimum of 14 years to accede to the office of the presidency.
And, I’m not arguing the “birther” position with regard to Obama, though the jury is still out on that one, nor contending this chief executive’s penchant for vacationing overseas renders him ineligible for re-election because he’s still technically a permanent resident.
However, a president who has a clear aversion to references to Someone greater than he is should be questioned as to just exactly what he does believe.
No? (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6831.)
The nuns used to tell us we couldn’t understand God, information that wasn’t news to eight year olds since we often couldn’t understand the nuns, either.
Still, I eventually picked up on the concept that God was beyond understanding, much like arithmatic, and I accepted the principle of the existence of an Almighty Who, if He wasn’t watching every move we made or taking notes on every time I was impudent, was up there, somewhere, not taking written notes but aware.
Atheists aren’t beset by such mundane concerns since they don’t believe in the existence of any god, opting instead for the belief they and the universe weren’t created but rather are the products of happenstance. Chicken atheists, agnostics, believe only what Thomas the Doubting Apostle believed. They want proof, tantamount to insisting their Creator furnish irrefutable evidence of His existence before they subscribe.
Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama and what he believes.
Few modern presidents have been overtly religious and many seem to have been “Christmas Christians,” men who visit churches on important occasions such as major religious holidays or for funerals of dignitaries.
Some, like Ike, hosted White House observances, others, like Bill Clinton, rarely if ever went to church and made no pretense of being regular attendees, and still others, notably Jimmy Carter, wore their religion on their sleeves right next to his incompetency pin.
None of this is meant to suggest that that a belief in God is a requisite for the position of president of the United States. It’s not mandated in the Constitution which was designed to permit any natural born citizen age 35 and up who has been a permanent resident for a minimum of 14 years to accede to the office of the presidency.
And, I’m not arguing the “birther” position with regard to Obama, though the jury is still out on that one, nor contending this chief executive’s penchant for vacationing overseas renders him ineligible for re-election because he’s still technically a permanent resident.
However, a president who has a clear aversion to references to Someone greater than he is should be questioned as to just exactly what he does believe.
No? (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6831.)
Friday, November 25, 2011
Scared People, Scary Times: Chris Matthews and Survivalists
Scared People, Scary Times: Chris Matthews and Survivalists
As we reflect on what were hopefully uneventful but satisfying Thanksgiving festivities and begin the annual debauchery euphemistically called holiday shopping, getting and spending until it hurts, it’s worthwhile to also reflect on our times. They are times trying for men’s and women’s souls, taxing for our wallets, and straining on our blood pressure.
As with Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day is much-anticipated and much-prepared-for but what we wake up to the morning after still presents us with the real world, a perplexing and scary world beyond the scariness of frenzied shoppers pepper-spraying their competition, beyond Black Friday’s greed, beyond imagining to some.
Two news stories illustrate the scariness from widely-differing perspectives, Chris Matthews’ terror that his idol is screwing up royally and midwesterners terrified of the same thing.
The Left’s answer to the extremism of David Duke, the redoubtable and undoubtable Matthews, the allegedly-objective MSNBC commentator who long ago sold his alleged objectivity to the presidential candidate who sent thrills up his leg, is disillusioned.
Poor Mr. Tingles has lately been immersed in a grand funk, funked over the tingle-source, Barack Hussein Obama, who hasn’t quite governed up to Matthews’ expectations although he has lived up to the expectations of those of us who expected the disaster we have in the White House.
Matthews isn’t asking for much from the president, he just wants “something to root for.”
He wants Obama to “tell us our orders, give us our mission” for his presupposed second term. Without mentioning one true crux of Obama’s problems, his clear leadership deficiency, Matthews furnishes a litany of Obamian failures but blames those “with propellers on their heads” surrounding Obama for his insularity, for the fact he doesn’t call anyone to push his agenda.
See a clip of Mr. Tingles whining here http://tiny.cc/pv2ps.
Chris Matthews is the poster boy for muddle-headed liberals, oblivious of this president’s multiplicity of weaknesses and ignorant of the reason Obama isn’t providing marching orders to his troops in his mainstream media or calling anyone with his plans for the future: He doesn’t have any, aside from driving the country to oblivion.
Matthews and Obama may be bewildered but not everyone is.
More ominous than Matthews’ disappointment with the Anointed One or Obama’s inefficacy is the report that many Americans understand full well America’s perils and are battening down their personal hatches in anticipation of Obamageddon.
Construction of housing is at a virtual standstill nationwide but companies that build underground retreats–which used to be called air raid shelters when we feared the Soviets–are booming as we worry now about an impending collapse of civilization.
The U.S.S.R. proved to be a paper tiger; the Obama administration is proving to be a world piñata and a national embarrassment.
In Missouri, the Show Me State, people aren’t looking to be shown anything anymore since they’ve seen more than enough and realize taking swipes at an Obama piñata won’t yield any goodies are stocking up on their own goodies, storable food and supplies, and guns. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6811.)
As we reflect on what were hopefully uneventful but satisfying Thanksgiving festivities and begin the annual debauchery euphemistically called holiday shopping, getting and spending until it hurts, it’s worthwhile to also reflect on our times. They are times trying for men’s and women’s souls, taxing for our wallets, and straining on our blood pressure.
As with Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day is much-anticipated and much-prepared-for but what we wake up to the morning after still presents us with the real world, a perplexing and scary world beyond the scariness of frenzied shoppers pepper-spraying their competition, beyond Black Friday’s greed, beyond imagining to some.
Two news stories illustrate the scariness from widely-differing perspectives, Chris Matthews’ terror that his idol is screwing up royally and midwesterners terrified of the same thing.
The Left’s answer to the extremism of David Duke, the redoubtable and undoubtable Matthews, the allegedly-objective MSNBC commentator who long ago sold his alleged objectivity to the presidential candidate who sent thrills up his leg, is disillusioned.
Poor Mr. Tingles has lately been immersed in a grand funk, funked over the tingle-source, Barack Hussein Obama, who hasn’t quite governed up to Matthews’ expectations although he has lived up to the expectations of those of us who expected the disaster we have in the White House.
Matthews isn’t asking for much from the president, he just wants “something to root for.”
He wants Obama to “tell us our orders, give us our mission” for his presupposed second term. Without mentioning one true crux of Obama’s problems, his clear leadership deficiency, Matthews furnishes a litany of Obamian failures but blames those “with propellers on their heads” surrounding Obama for his insularity, for the fact he doesn’t call anyone to push his agenda.
See a clip of Mr. Tingles whining here http://tiny.cc/pv2ps.
Chris Matthews is the poster boy for muddle-headed liberals, oblivious of this president’s multiplicity of weaknesses and ignorant of the reason Obama isn’t providing marching orders to his troops in his mainstream media or calling anyone with his plans for the future: He doesn’t have any, aside from driving the country to oblivion.
Matthews and Obama may be bewildered but not everyone is.
More ominous than Matthews’ disappointment with the Anointed One or Obama’s inefficacy is the report that many Americans understand full well America’s perils and are battening down their personal hatches in anticipation of Obamageddon.
Construction of housing is at a virtual standstill nationwide but companies that build underground retreats–which used to be called air raid shelters when we feared the Soviets–are booming as we worry now about an impending collapse of civilization.
The U.S.S.R. proved to be a paper tiger; the Obama administration is proving to be a world piñata and a national embarrassment.
In Missouri, the Show Me State, people aren’t looking to be shown anything anymore since they’ve seen more than enough and realize taking swipes at an Obama piñata won’t yield any goodies are stocking up on their own goodies, storable food and supplies, and guns. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6811.)
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Thanksgiving, Wishin' and Hopin'
Thanksgiving, Wishing and Hoping
The following is a re-re-print, with 2011 updates, of an article first posted here a few years ago which I’m trotting out once again since I’m a lazy sonofagun and because certain truths never change–and re-publishing them affords me the time to research and post other articles which highlight the sad reality that Americans should cherish Thanksgivings of yore since we may never see their like again. . .
What we should be giving thanks for this Thanksgiving Day because Navy Seal Team 6 executed the barbarian who executed 3,000 innocent people on September 11th. 2001 even if the terrorist threat is still alive and well.
We should be thankful that the Mad Dog of the Middle East is gone even if his replacements may be as bad or worse.
We should thank God for our brave men and women who daily risk their lives and limbs so that the Occupy Wall Street anarchists are free to defecate on police cars and otherwise cause mayhem while the rest of us tolerate them.
We should be thankful President Barack Hussein Obama finally produced a birth certificate even if its authenticity is suspect.
We should be especially thankful for those gifts that are immutable and not subject to the vagaries of personal and national worries.
Most of us have a great deal to give thanks for and those living in America who don’t feel thankful right now should reflect on what their national birthright has afforded them:
. We should give thanks that we are alive and, hopefully, healthy. If not healthy, we should give thanks that we live in the greatest nation on the planet in which to be sick. Our medical system is in the throes of upheaval with Obamacare and was far from perfect even before but it sure beats Bangladesh and it beats Britain’s NHS where the very sick are shuffled off to Bampton.
. We should give thanks even if we disagree with the designation of the United States as the greatest nation on the planet since, unlike your freedoms in many other countries, our borders are wide open and you should feel free to hop the next flight to Ethiopia or Somalia or Moldavia and revel in their attractions.
. We should give thanks that we have a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, and food on our tables. If you are jobless at the moment and can’t provide the best of those amenities this year, give thanks that you can afford some and resolve to work harder in 2011 so that you will afford more next year.
. We should give thanks that we have a political system which allows us to alter our government, as we did in part in 2010, and far more radically on November 4th, 2008, without a revolutionary uprising which in other nations frequently results in widespread death and destruction.
. We should give thanks to God Who made all that possible by guiding our Founders to create a free, independent, democratic republic which has served us very well for over 200 years.
Millions on God’s Green Earth can’t give thanks for any of the above. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6759.)
The following is a re-re-print, with 2011 updates, of an article first posted here a few years ago which I’m trotting out once again since I’m a lazy sonofagun and because certain truths never change–and re-publishing them affords me the time to research and post other articles which highlight the sad reality that Americans should cherish Thanksgivings of yore since we may never see their like again. . .
What we should be giving thanks for this Thanksgiving Day because Navy Seal Team 6 executed the barbarian who executed 3,000 innocent people on September 11th. 2001 even if the terrorist threat is still alive and well.
We should be thankful that the Mad Dog of the Middle East is gone even if his replacements may be as bad or worse.
We should thank God for our brave men and women who daily risk their lives and limbs so that the Occupy Wall Street anarchists are free to defecate on police cars and otherwise cause mayhem while the rest of us tolerate them.
We should be thankful President Barack Hussein Obama finally produced a birth certificate even if its authenticity is suspect.
We should be especially thankful for those gifts that are immutable and not subject to the vagaries of personal and national worries.
Most of us have a great deal to give thanks for and those living in America who don’t feel thankful right now should reflect on what their national birthright has afforded them:
. We should give thanks that we are alive and, hopefully, healthy. If not healthy, we should give thanks that we live in the greatest nation on the planet in which to be sick. Our medical system is in the throes of upheaval with Obamacare and was far from perfect even before but it sure beats Bangladesh and it beats Britain’s NHS where the very sick are shuffled off to Bampton.
. We should give thanks even if we disagree with the designation of the United States as the greatest nation on the planet since, unlike your freedoms in many other countries, our borders are wide open and you should feel free to hop the next flight to Ethiopia or Somalia or Moldavia and revel in their attractions.
. We should give thanks that we have a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, and food on our tables. If you are jobless at the moment and can’t provide the best of those amenities this year, give thanks that you can afford some and resolve to work harder in 2011 so that you will afford more next year.
. We should give thanks that we have a political system which allows us to alter our government, as we did in part in 2010, and far more radically on November 4th, 2008, without a revolutionary uprising which in other nations frequently results in widespread death and destruction.
. We should give thanks to God Who made all that possible by guiding our Founders to create a free, independent, democratic republic which has served us very well for over 200 years.
Millions on God’s Green Earth can’t give thanks for any of the above. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6759.)
When Does Tony Rezko Get Pardoned?
When Does Tony Rezko Get Pardoned?
Just in time for Thanksgiving so that deserving drug runners could be home with their families for the holiday and pick up where they left off selling cocaine and pot, President Barack Hussein Obama pardoned four of them and threw in a convicted gambler just for the jollies. It’s just too bad Antoine Rezko missed the cut.
Antoine Who?
It’s easy to forget Antoine, Tony, if you ever heard of him in the first place. His case received precious little publicity from Obama’s MSM because of close his close ties to the president. Indeed, in a lengthy Chicago Tribune article on the sentencing of the convicted extortionist, Obama’s name isn’t even mentioned.
Tony is in a disreputable class with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Floyd Mayweather, Michael Pfleger and a whole host of others, i.e., unmentionable by the mainstreamers who have been downplaying or ignoring the president’s unseemly and seamy relationships with reprobates for years in the hope that the electorate won’t notice.
And many still haven’t.
Speaking of years, the Syrian-born Rezko got 10 1/2 of them “for extorting millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval while he was a top fundraiser and adviser to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”
Prior to that gig, he had been a good Obama buddy during his pre-White House years. Rezko, real estate developer-extortionist, was the pre-eminent Chicago Obama patron who set up the future president in his posh pad and went on to become Obama fundraising bundler extraordinaire after that smelly deal . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6798.)
Just in time for Thanksgiving so that deserving drug runners could be home with their families for the holiday and pick up where they left off selling cocaine and pot, President Barack Hussein Obama pardoned four of them and threw in a convicted gambler just for the jollies. It’s just too bad Antoine Rezko missed the cut.
Antoine Who?
It’s easy to forget Antoine, Tony, if you ever heard of him in the first place. His case received precious little publicity from Obama’s MSM because of close his close ties to the president. Indeed, in a lengthy Chicago Tribune article on the sentencing of the convicted extortionist, Obama’s name isn’t even mentioned.
Tony is in a disreputable class with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Floyd Mayweather, Michael Pfleger and a whole host of others, i.e., unmentionable by the mainstreamers who have been downplaying or ignoring the president’s unseemly and seamy relationships with reprobates for years in the hope that the electorate won’t notice.
And many still haven’t.
Speaking of years, the Syrian-born Rezko got 10 1/2 of them “for extorting millions of dollars from firms seeking state business or regulatory approval while he was a top fundraiser and adviser to then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”
Prior to that gig, he had been a good Obama buddy during his pre-White House years. Rezko, real estate developer-extortionist, was the pre-eminent Chicago Obama patron who set up the future president in his posh pad and went on to become Obama fundraising bundler extraordinaire after that smelly deal . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6798.)
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Unconscionable Lack of Liberal Conscience
The Unconscionable Lack of Liberal Conscience
“Let your conscience be your guide” is an outdated axiom for Catholics in the Democrat Party, as is the concept of moral and ethical conduct as they apply to their religion.
True and unfortunately, morality and ethics are antithetical constructs in any political context and “ethics committees” seem out of place in political bodies and largely exist as pro-forma charades to satisfy a gullible public but many liberal Catholic Dems go further by overtly flaunting their contempt for ethical behavior.
Of course, relativists reject the idea of any absolutes in life, which is a nifty excuse for avoiding condemnation for violating established societal norms of decency since they absolutely disagree with those dictates.
Thus, Catholic and non-Catholic Democrats alike are able to campaign against what reasonable individuals understand intuitively, the existence of living, human life in the womb, on the bases of debatable claims that it is not a human life, that it’s not viable, that a woman’s right to privacy takes precedence over pre-born life.
The moral-ethical relativists absolutely believe all that and, though I think their beliefs are absurd, I can consider the source and accept them. If their faiths condone the murder of innocent pre-borns, who am I to disagree? The prudent approach of opting for sparing lives when there is any doubt as to when life begins in-utero is inapplicable to relativists.
You see, it’s all relative, whatever that means.
What I find totally unacceptable are politicians, especially ostensibly-Catholic politicians, who preach civil rights yet advocate in favor of denying the most fundamental civil entitlement, the constitutionally-guaranteed “right to life” through abortion. When they complain about Catholic consciences inhibiting their unorthodox views, they are hypocrites verging on apostasy.
Dozens of current Catholic politicians have been lectured . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6647.)
“Let your conscience be your guide” is an outdated axiom for Catholics in the Democrat Party, as is the concept of moral and ethical conduct as they apply to their religion.
True and unfortunately, morality and ethics are antithetical constructs in any political context and “ethics committees” seem out of place in political bodies and largely exist as pro-forma charades to satisfy a gullible public but many liberal Catholic Dems go further by overtly flaunting their contempt for ethical behavior.
Of course, relativists reject the idea of any absolutes in life, which is a nifty excuse for avoiding condemnation for violating established societal norms of decency since they absolutely disagree with those dictates.
Thus, Catholic and non-Catholic Democrats alike are able to campaign against what reasonable individuals understand intuitively, the existence of living, human life in the womb, on the bases of debatable claims that it is not a human life, that it’s not viable, that a woman’s right to privacy takes precedence over pre-born life.
The moral-ethical relativists absolutely believe all that and, though I think their beliefs are absurd, I can consider the source and accept them. If their faiths condone the murder of innocent pre-borns, who am I to disagree? The prudent approach of opting for sparing lives when there is any doubt as to when life begins in-utero is inapplicable to relativists.
You see, it’s all relative, whatever that means.
What I find totally unacceptable are politicians, especially ostensibly-Catholic politicians, who preach civil rights yet advocate in favor of denying the most fundamental civil entitlement, the constitutionally-guaranteed “right to life” through abortion. When they complain about Catholic consciences inhibiting their unorthodox views, they are hypocrites verging on apostasy.
Dozens of current Catholic politicians have been lectured . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6647.)
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
Monday, November 21, 2011
Unleashed! Duke of Edinburgh Disses Wind!!
Unleashed! Duke of Edinburgh Disses Wind!
In spite of rumors to the contrary, the 90 year old Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Consort to Queen Elizabeth II, really does have a mind of his own, at least insofar as wind farms are concerned.
The rarely-seen Philip outside the company of Queen Liz on state occasions and who even more rarely says anything of consequence, thinks wind farms are bloody tommyrot, in Brit slang.
Of course, royalty doesn’t use slang but he was equally-emphatic on the functionality of those blots on the landscape and seascape which generate far more profits for developers than they produce reliable electricity. As Phil said, they are “absolutely useless,” a position shared by his son, the less than bonnie prince Charlie who has put the kibosh on any thoughts of building windmills on his Duchy of Cornwall lands.
That very politically incorrect opinion of the House of Windsor might be seconded by the House of Kennedy clan which opposed the construction of windmills but primarily because they would obstruct their Hyannis Port view of Nantucket Sound: To hell with being eco-friendly, not in our front yard!
To hell with the Kennedys, said the Obama administration when it gave the okay to mar the Kennedy vista and ignore one of early-supporter Uncle Teddy’s final wishes last year,
Prince Philip has little worry that wind farms will be erected anywhere near Buckingham Palace or in proximity to any of his other and his bride’s royal pads. Unlike the Kennedys, however, he takes issue with the whole concept of wind-gerated energy on practical, not self-serving grounds.
He calls the idea “a disgrace,” contends it will “never work,” and accuses those who buy into the scam of believing in a “fairy tale" . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6176.)
In spite of rumors to the contrary, the 90 year old Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Consort to Queen Elizabeth II, really does have a mind of his own, at least insofar as wind farms are concerned.
The rarely-seen Philip outside the company of Queen Liz on state occasions and who even more rarely says anything of consequence, thinks wind farms are bloody tommyrot, in Brit slang.
Of course, royalty doesn’t use slang but he was equally-emphatic on the functionality of those blots on the landscape and seascape which generate far more profits for developers than they produce reliable electricity. As Phil said, they are “absolutely useless,” a position shared by his son, the less than bonnie prince Charlie who has put the kibosh on any thoughts of building windmills on his Duchy of Cornwall lands.
That very politically incorrect opinion of the House of Windsor might be seconded by the House of Kennedy clan which opposed the construction of windmills but primarily because they would obstruct their Hyannis Port view of Nantucket Sound: To hell with being eco-friendly, not in our front yard!
To hell with the Kennedys, said the Obama administration when it gave the okay to mar the Kennedy vista and ignore one of early-supporter Uncle Teddy’s final wishes last year,
Prince Philip has little worry that wind farms will be erected anywhere near Buckingham Palace or in proximity to any of his other and his bride’s royal pads. Unlike the Kennedys, however, he takes issue with the whole concept of wind-gerated energy on practical, not self-serving grounds.
He calls the idea “a disgrace,” contends it will “never work,” and accuses those who buy into the scam of believing in a “fairy tale" . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6176.)
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Maxine Waters and OWS Mitigate Rape
Maxine Waters and OWS Mitigate Rape
The perverse, violent act of raping a girl or woman has always and rightly been considered a vile, reprehensible crime in civilized societies.
Many Muslim nations either condone rape or place such burdensome sharia restrictions on the victim that it’s not worth the effort of reporting, but that’s another story un-related to civilized societies.
Based on her blase’ attitude toward the crime of rape, as well as toward assault and thievery, Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters could very well be a closet Muslim as could the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
You may recall the 73 year old Mad Maxine, former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and representative of California’s 35th CD. She’s the staunch defender of looters whom she believes are simply “mamas trying to buy diapers” and riot as “the voice of the unheard” and who last August told conservatives where to go when she said, “The Tea Party can go straight to hell!”
Mad Max has a way with words, a toxic way but a way. Wanting Republicans to “walk the plank” may have been metaphorical but there is no mistaking her hell suggestion nor her 2005 comments on President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney: “The President is a liar. Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief.”
The representative of Rodney King’s hellish district has less emphatic views on rape and other ongoing criminal activities at OWS demonstrations which she dismissed with the comment, “that’s life and it happens.”
A fierce opponent of flag-waving though not greed, Waters was named on a list of corrupt congresspeople on various occasions and cited as congressional “Porker of the Month” in June, 2009 by Citizens Against Government Waste. Not unsurprisingly and much like President Barack Hussein Obama, she is an enthusiastic supportor of all things liberal. Both back the OWSers to the hilt even if, umm, stuff happens in their midst.
And a lot of stuff is happening during those protests, including muggings, robberies, overdoses, and sexual attacks on both men and women. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6011.)
The perverse, violent act of raping a girl or woman has always and rightly been considered a vile, reprehensible crime in civilized societies.
Many Muslim nations either condone rape or place such burdensome sharia restrictions on the victim that it’s not worth the effort of reporting, but that’s another story un-related to civilized societies.
Based on her blase’ attitude toward the crime of rape, as well as toward assault and thievery, Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters could very well be a closet Muslim as could the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
You may recall the 73 year old Mad Maxine, former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and representative of California’s 35th CD. She’s the staunch defender of looters whom she believes are simply “mamas trying to buy diapers” and riot as “the voice of the unheard” and who last August told conservatives where to go when she said, “The Tea Party can go straight to hell!”
Mad Max has a way with words, a toxic way but a way. Wanting Republicans to “walk the plank” may have been metaphorical but there is no mistaking her hell suggestion nor her 2005 comments on President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney: “The President is a liar. Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief.”
The representative of Rodney King’s hellish district has less emphatic views on rape and other ongoing criminal activities at OWS demonstrations which she dismissed with the comment, “that’s life and it happens.”
A fierce opponent of flag-waving though not greed, Waters was named on a list of corrupt congresspeople on various occasions and cited as congressional “Porker of the Month” in June, 2009 by Citizens Against Government Waste. Not unsurprisingly and much like President Barack Hussein Obama, she is an enthusiastic supportor of all things liberal. Both back the OWSers to the hilt even if, umm, stuff happens in their midst.
And a lot of stuff is happening during those protests, including muggings, robberies, overdoses, and sexual attacks on both men and women. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6011.)
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Democrat Extremism in the Defense of Extremism
Democrat Extremism in the Defense of Extremism
Barry Goldwater’s line from his 1964 Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech is often misquoted and more often intentionally misinterpreted.
What Goldwater actually said was, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” What the founder of modern conservatism and inspiration for Ronald Reagan meant was that Americans should value their freedoms enough to struggle for them, as long as those liberties were virtuous.
Lyndon Johnson refused to debate Goldwater during the ’64 campaign for the presidency. Instead, with no substantive basis, Democrats painted the senator from Arizona as an extremist of the worst kind who would start World War III and deploy nuclear weapons in Viet Nam.
Toward that end of smearing Goldwater, Democrats deployed the most infamous, extremist advertisement in national political history, a picture of a young girl picking daisies with an atomic explosion in the background.
The ad also featured Johnson saying, “These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God’s children will live, or to do into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die” and concluded by showing “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd.”
The ad ran only once but once was sufficient. Mission accomplished. Johnson defeated Goldwater in a landslide and went on to send 63,000 American soldiers to their deaths in ‘Nam.
If we define extreme as the outer limits, most removed from the center, beyond the average sense of moderation, that one minute ad was the epitome, not only a bald-faced lie but a distortion which helped cause those needless fatalities.
Having learned the effectiveness of lies and distortions though not their immorality, many statements and actions by liberals and indeed by today’s Democrat Party must be labelled extremist yet, practicing the same underhanded techniques as those employed against Goldwater, they succeed in establishing them as truth thanks to a complicit media.
There have been so many examples of extremist Democrat rhetoric and actions during the brief reign of President Barack Hussein Obama rivaling the venom of the Goldwater campaign that it’s impossible to detail them all in the limited space available here.
Virtually all of them, from MSNBC commentators wishing death for conservatives, to union thugs visiting mayhem on opponents, to administration functionaries preaching racial hatred and defying authority, to the Wall Street Occupiers creating social chaos, are designed with one goal in mind: re-electing the president.
The thinking seems to be that anything, any words or activities that serve to subvert the American value system, also serve to undermine the Republican Party and to insure four more years of the extremist, socialist domestic policies and foreign policies which cater to the most extreme elements in America.
Why else would Obama and other Democrats wink at their vile MSNBC lackeys, their invective-spewing unionists, their un-elected officials making a farce of law, and endorse the OWS anarchists?
Thanks to liberal brainwashing as to the rightness and entitlement to legal abortion and residency in the White House of the most pro-abortion president in history, there is no more contentious issue on the American scene today.
For Democrats, the abortion issue fills their needs to appear sensitive, at the same time they conceal their gross insensitivity to life. It enables them to lock-in a powerful segment of the electorate, at the same time it constitutes an infringement on the rights of the pre-born. It affords them the opportunity to claim a sense of superiority, at the same time it satisfies the contemporary fixation on selfishness.
As such, the liberal sacrament of abortion has become the domestic foundation of the Democrat Party. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6007.)
Barry Goldwater’s line from his 1964 Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech is often misquoted and more often intentionally misinterpreted.
What Goldwater actually said was, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” What the founder of modern conservatism and inspiration for Ronald Reagan meant was that Americans should value their freedoms enough to struggle for them, as long as those liberties were virtuous.
Lyndon Johnson refused to debate Goldwater during the ’64 campaign for the presidency. Instead, with no substantive basis, Democrats painted the senator from Arizona as an extremist of the worst kind who would start World War III and deploy nuclear weapons in Viet Nam.
Toward that end of smearing Goldwater, Democrats deployed the most infamous, extremist advertisement in national political history, a picture of a young girl picking daisies with an atomic explosion in the background.
The ad also featured Johnson saying, “These are the stakes. To make a world in which all of God’s children will live, or to do into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die” and concluded by showing “Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd.”
The ad ran only once but once was sufficient. Mission accomplished. Johnson defeated Goldwater in a landslide and went on to send 63,000 American soldiers to their deaths in ‘Nam.
If we define extreme as the outer limits, most removed from the center, beyond the average sense of moderation, that one minute ad was the epitome, not only a bald-faced lie but a distortion which helped cause those needless fatalities.
Having learned the effectiveness of lies and distortions though not their immorality, many statements and actions by liberals and indeed by today’s Democrat Party must be labelled extremist yet, practicing the same underhanded techniques as those employed against Goldwater, they succeed in establishing them as truth thanks to a complicit media.
There have been so many examples of extremist Democrat rhetoric and actions during the brief reign of President Barack Hussein Obama rivaling the venom of the Goldwater campaign that it’s impossible to detail them all in the limited space available here.
Virtually all of them, from MSNBC commentators wishing death for conservatives, to union thugs visiting mayhem on opponents, to administration functionaries preaching racial hatred and defying authority, to the Wall Street Occupiers creating social chaos, are designed with one goal in mind: re-electing the president.
The thinking seems to be that anything, any words or activities that serve to subvert the American value system, also serve to undermine the Republican Party and to insure four more years of the extremist, socialist domestic policies and foreign policies which cater to the most extreme elements in America.
Why else would Obama and other Democrats wink at their vile MSNBC lackeys, their invective-spewing unionists, their un-elected officials making a farce of law, and endorse the OWS anarchists?
Thanks to liberal brainwashing as to the rightness and entitlement to legal abortion and residency in the White House of the most pro-abortion president in history, there is no more contentious issue on the American scene today.
For Democrats, the abortion issue fills their needs to appear sensitive, at the same time they conceal their gross insensitivity to life. It enables them to lock-in a powerful segment of the electorate, at the same time it constitutes an infringement on the rights of the pre-born. It affords them the opportunity to claim a sense of superiority, at the same time it satisfies the contemporary fixation on selfishness.
As such, the liberal sacrament of abortion has become the domestic foundation of the Democrat Party. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6007.)
Obama, the Oracular Orator
Obama, the Oracular Orator
Lest our president feel neglected after the attention paid to his second-in-command in “Biden, the Bumbling Booby,” with all due deference to the Obamassiah, the Big O, the Anointed One, I hereby devote a separate but equal article to Our Leader.
I cited a few of Barack Hussein Obama’s old, new, and always classic instances of dumb and thoughtless gaffes in ”Biden” and some others are so old that his mainstream media have sometimes acknowledged them, if grudgingly.
In that latter category: his geographical confusions, dissing Cambridge police, ridiculing Special Olympics kids, addressing dead soldiers he saw in a Memorial Day audience, inventing an Austrian language, misstating a Kansas tornado death toll of 12 as 10,000, saying the Mideast has plaqued the Mideast for centuries, etc. etc. etc.
Those and his legion of additional screw-ups surpass Biden’s and even Bush-isms but are irrelevant as compared to the central issue surrounding Barack Obama: Is he really anywhere nearly as smart as his MSM have been painting him for years now?
He apparently did graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, though he has adamantly refused to release his transcripts from those prestigious institutions and his years at Columbia are still cloaked in mystery.
He did allegedly teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, though the contents of his lectures are still unknown and he has often disregarded the Constitution.
He did work as a community organizer in Chicago, though who and what he organized and for what purposes are still unclear, and suspect, as are his associations during that period.
The only thing Obama voters truly knew about him when they bought into his undefined hopey-changey mantra in 2008 was that Barack Obama was a brilliant and spectacular orator.
Over the past three years, more objective observers have noticed his orations have been far less than brilliant and his oratorical skills are very questionable. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6004.)
Lest our president feel neglected after the attention paid to his second-in-command in “Biden, the Bumbling Booby,” with all due deference to the Obamassiah, the Big O, the Anointed One, I hereby devote a separate but equal article to Our Leader.
I cited a few of Barack Hussein Obama’s old, new, and always classic instances of dumb and thoughtless gaffes in ”Biden” and some others are so old that his mainstream media have sometimes acknowledged them, if grudgingly.
In that latter category: his geographical confusions, dissing Cambridge police, ridiculing Special Olympics kids, addressing dead soldiers he saw in a Memorial Day audience, inventing an Austrian language, misstating a Kansas tornado death toll of 12 as 10,000, saying the Mideast has plaqued the Mideast for centuries, etc. etc. etc.
Those and his legion of additional screw-ups surpass Biden’s and even Bush-isms but are irrelevant as compared to the central issue surrounding Barack Obama: Is he really anywhere nearly as smart as his MSM have been painting him for years now?
He apparently did graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, though he has adamantly refused to release his transcripts from those prestigious institutions and his years at Columbia are still cloaked in mystery.
He did allegedly teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, though the contents of his lectures are still unknown and he has often disregarded the Constitution.
He did work as a community organizer in Chicago, though who and what he organized and for what purposes are still unclear, and suspect, as are his associations during that period.
The only thing Obama voters truly knew about him when they bought into his undefined hopey-changey mantra in 2008 was that Barack Obama was a brilliant and spectacular orator.
Over the past three years, more objective observers have noticed his orations have been far less than brilliant and his oratorical skills are very questionable. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6004.)
Friday, November 18, 2011
Biden, the Bumbling Booby
Biden, the Bumbling Booby
At the risk of insulting those tropical sea birds of the gannet family, America’s Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden is a booby of the first order, a master of the gaffe and exemplar of the inane second only to his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama.
Biden’s staff may be even boobier.
After Obama ripped into Americans as “lazy,” he took off on one of his frequent jaunts ending up Down Under where he told Australian students that American school kids had “fallen behind,” an inappropriate though true admission no president should concede to foreigners.
That knock on his own country followed his amazing gaffe while standing on U.S. soil in the reputed land of his birth, Hawaii, and thought he was in Asia and preceded a Bush-like episode in Bali when he couldn’t open a door to a conference room.
Don’t expect to hear much about those stories on Obama’s MSM anymore than you heard much about the 57 states he said he campaigned in, his reference to Navy “corpsemen” when he meant “corps men” or the fact he pays $30,000 each for his kids to attend private school in lieu of the American public schools he badmouthed.
Still, the man a heartbeat away from the presidency, with an able assist from the VP’s staff, gives Obama a run for his money when it comes to screwing things up.
Take that “transparency” the administration had touted as a hallmark and which has become one of its biggest jokes on the American people.
When Politico.com ridicules Biden’s ”closed-door transparency chat” on Thursday, what it termed the “irony in Vice President Biden’s schedule,” it’s pretty clear more than irony was involved. Stupidity might be a better word. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5991.)
At the risk of insulting those tropical sea birds of the gannet family, America’s Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden is a booby of the first order, a master of the gaffe and exemplar of the inane second only to his boss, President Barack Hussein Obama.
Biden’s staff may be even boobier.
After Obama ripped into Americans as “lazy,” he took off on one of his frequent jaunts ending up Down Under where he told Australian students that American school kids had “fallen behind,” an inappropriate though true admission no president should concede to foreigners.
That knock on his own country followed his amazing gaffe while standing on U.S. soil in the reputed land of his birth, Hawaii, and thought he was in Asia and preceded a Bush-like episode in Bali when he couldn’t open a door to a conference room.
Don’t expect to hear much about those stories on Obama’s MSM anymore than you heard much about the 57 states he said he campaigned in, his reference to Navy “corpsemen” when he meant “corps men” or the fact he pays $30,000 each for his kids to attend private school in lieu of the American public schools he badmouthed.
Still, the man a heartbeat away from the presidency, with an able assist from the VP’s staff, gives Obama a run for his money when it comes to screwing things up.
Take that “transparency” the administration had touted as a hallmark and which has become one of its biggest jokes on the American people.
When Politico.com ridicules Biden’s ”closed-door transparency chat” on Thursday, what it termed the “irony in Vice President Biden’s schedule,” it’s pretty clear more than irony was involved. Stupidity might be a better word. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5991.)
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Smile! It's Transgender Awareness Week!
Smile! It's Transgender Awareness Week!
No one really knows who first said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad” but, if there’s any validity to the sentiment, there are clear signs of madness in society today. One proof is this week, “Transgender Awareness Week.”
For a change I’m not referring to the Occupy Wall Street loonies or sex-addled Penn State coaches or Nancy Pelosi but to people who decide they don’t like their penises or vaginas and either have their male members lopped off or female parts supplemented with male organs.
They’re called “transgenders.” They can also be called disturbed. When their enablers are parents of young children, they should be prosecuted for child abuse as surely as PSU’s Jerry Sandusky.
Transgendering seems to be all the rage in some, fortunately limited, quarters but perhaps the worst feature of the anomaly is the support and encouragement granted them by the mainstream media and Democrat politicians.
Forty-two year old Chaz, (formerly Chastity), Bono is only the most recent instance of MSM lionizing transgenders. However, Chaz/Chastity was an adult when he transformed himself from female to male and even if he can’t dance very well he was entitled to enjoy his self-mutilation to his heart’s content.
Sarah and Bill Tyler were adults as well though they didn’t act that way when they succumbed to the pressures exerted on them by their four year old, Danaan, born Dana.
When he was all of two, Dana began insisting he wasn’t really a boy, by four he was denouncing God for burdening him with a penis and threatened to cut it off. By six, he talked about hanging himself and told his parents, ”I don’t think God is so great because God made a mistake when he made me.”
Little Dana claimed he was being bullied at school, although his parents sending him to school lugging a princess backpack and lunchbox may have been a factor in that teasing. When he insisted on wearing high-heeled slippers, they bought him high-heeled slippers.
Isn’t that what all parents do, give their children everything they demand?
To the Tylers’ rescue came none other than the biggest flamer on cable television “news,” Anderson Cooper, famously known for his lasciviously-gay remark denigrating the Tea Party movement and relating it to his own homosexual practice of “teabagging.”
Well, Cooper isn’t exactly known for that comment since CNN accepted his apology and rewarded him with his own show.
In any event, Cooper featured the Tylers on his newest show in a special edition titled, “Children & Teens Caught in the Wrong Bodies,” a subject to which Cooper could probably relate.
Diagnosed with “gender identity disorder,” a disturbance newly-concocted to explain situations shrinks can’t explain, Danann is now living her life as a girl and her mother feels, “I have a little girl that needs to be a little girl.”
It’s good that everyone’s happy. Let’s see what they think ten or twenty years from now when the Tyler’s spoiled, indulged child confronts the real world and discovers she can’t always get her own way, or that being a boy wasn’t all that bad.
In view of the facts the Tylers were distraught and confused, consulted their homosexual friends, and hailed from Orange County, California, they can almost be forgiven for permitting a very young child dictate decisions that will affect the rest of her life.
Less forgivable are the actions of Massachusetts Democrats who rammed a bill through that state’s legislature which will affect every school, workplace, accommodation, and institution in the Bay State. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5994.)
No one really knows who first said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad” but, if there’s any validity to the sentiment, there are clear signs of madness in society today. One proof is this week, “Transgender Awareness Week.”
For a change I’m not referring to the Occupy Wall Street loonies or sex-addled Penn State coaches or Nancy Pelosi but to people who decide they don’t like their penises or vaginas and either have their male members lopped off or female parts supplemented with male organs.
They’re called “transgenders.” They can also be called disturbed. When their enablers are parents of young children, they should be prosecuted for child abuse as surely as PSU’s Jerry Sandusky.
Transgendering seems to be all the rage in some, fortunately limited, quarters but perhaps the worst feature of the anomaly is the support and encouragement granted them by the mainstream media and Democrat politicians.
Forty-two year old Chaz, (formerly Chastity), Bono is only the most recent instance of MSM lionizing transgenders. However, Chaz/Chastity was an adult when he transformed himself from female to male and even if he can’t dance very well he was entitled to enjoy his self-mutilation to his heart’s content.
Sarah and Bill Tyler were adults as well though they didn’t act that way when they succumbed to the pressures exerted on them by their four year old, Danaan, born Dana.
When he was all of two, Dana began insisting he wasn’t really a boy, by four he was denouncing God for burdening him with a penis and threatened to cut it off. By six, he talked about hanging himself and told his parents, ”I don’t think God is so great because God made a mistake when he made me.”
Little Dana claimed he was being bullied at school, although his parents sending him to school lugging a princess backpack and lunchbox may have been a factor in that teasing. When he insisted on wearing high-heeled slippers, they bought him high-heeled slippers.
Isn’t that what all parents do, give their children everything they demand?
To the Tylers’ rescue came none other than the biggest flamer on cable television “news,” Anderson Cooper, famously known for his lasciviously-gay remark denigrating the Tea Party movement and relating it to his own homosexual practice of “teabagging.”
Well, Cooper isn’t exactly known for that comment since CNN accepted his apology and rewarded him with his own show.
In any event, Cooper featured the Tylers on his newest show in a special edition titled, “Children & Teens Caught in the Wrong Bodies,” a subject to which Cooper could probably relate.
Diagnosed with “gender identity disorder,” a disturbance newly-concocted to explain situations shrinks can’t explain, Danann is now living her life as a girl and her mother feels, “I have a little girl that needs to be a little girl.”
It’s good that everyone’s happy. Let’s see what they think ten or twenty years from now when the Tyler’s spoiled, indulged child confronts the real world and discovers she can’t always get her own way, or that being a boy wasn’t all that bad.
In view of the facts the Tylers were distraught and confused, consulted their homosexual friends, and hailed from Orange County, California, they can almost be forgiven for permitting a very young child dictate decisions that will affect the rest of her life.
Less forgivable are the actions of Massachusetts Democrats who rammed a bill through that state’s legislature which will affect every school, workplace, accommodation, and institution in the Bay State. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5994.)
Shooting Occupiers, Mute MSM
Shooting Occupiers, Mute MSM
A number of reports have linked Oscar Ramiro Ortega Hernandez, the man arrested for firing two rifle shots at the White House last Friday, with the Occupy Wall Streeters, more specifically the Occupy D.C. branch of that anarchist movement.
Pictures of the scruffy, bearded Ortega Hernandez show him looking like a virtual poster boy for both the OWSers and Anarchy International.
No one was injured in the attack. Not unusually, the First Family was away on travel mode.
It didn’t take the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Park Police, and the Secret Service long to zero in on the Occupiers at Washington’s McPherson Square in their search for suspects. Ortega Hernandez was captured without incident on Wednesday at a Hampton Inn in Indiana, Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania State Police.
The capture may have gone without incident but the McPherson Occupiers were positively aghast at the government intrusion on their encampment. As Ralph Wittenburg, a spokesman for the leaderless group, told TalkingPointsMemo,com, authorities came through “searching for a so-called terrorist who shot at the White House, with no warrant, they went into everybody’s tents.”
Gasp! How nosy of them going into tents sans warrant, which they didn’t need on public property, trying to find a “so-called terrorist,” who had merely launched a couple of rounds at America’s Executive Mansion!
Our current chief executive just happens to be a big supporter of New York’s Occupy Wall Street mob as well as their offshoots . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5987.)
A number of reports have linked Oscar Ramiro Ortega Hernandez, the man arrested for firing two rifle shots at the White House last Friday, with the Occupy Wall Streeters, more specifically the Occupy D.C. branch of that anarchist movement.
Pictures of the scruffy, bearded Ortega Hernandez show him looking like a virtual poster boy for both the OWSers and Anarchy International.
No one was injured in the attack. Not unusually, the First Family was away on travel mode.
It didn’t take the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Park Police, and the Secret Service long to zero in on the Occupiers at Washington’s McPherson Square in their search for suspects. Ortega Hernandez was captured without incident on Wednesday at a Hampton Inn in Indiana, Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania State Police.
The capture may have gone without incident but the McPherson Occupiers were positively aghast at the government intrusion on their encampment. As Ralph Wittenburg, a spokesman for the leaderless group, told TalkingPointsMemo,com, authorities came through “searching for a so-called terrorist who shot at the White House, with no warrant, they went into everybody’s tents.”
Gasp! How nosy of them going into tents sans warrant, which they didn’t need on public property, trying to find a “so-called terrorist,” who had merely launched a couple of rounds at America’s Executive Mansion!
Our current chief executive just happens to be a big supporter of New York’s Occupy Wall Street mob as well as their offshoots . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5987.)
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Where's Uncle Omar??
Where's Uncle Omar??
President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration have an uncanny ability of ignoring and/or stonewalling embarrassing and/or illegal activities but the question of what happened to the president’s Uncle Omar has to take the cake when it comes to familial mysteries.
No one seems to know where he is.
You may recall Uncle Omar, actual name Onyango Obama, affectionately referred to as “Uncle Omar” in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father.
An illegal alien with a valid driver’s license and Social Security card, the 67 year old Kenyan was arrested in Framingham, Massachusetts on August 24th for a DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to yield the right of way. The first thing he told police was, ”I think I will call the White House,” presumably to chat with step-nephew Barack.
Held on a deportation detainer for two weeks, he was quietly released and when he appeared for a hearing he was “visibly amused” and “giggled” during the court proceedings, according to BostonHerald.com. He is scheduled for a November 17th pre-trial conference.
That was the last thing anyone saw or heard about Onyango-Omar who is no stranger to deportation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5981.)
President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration have an uncanny ability of ignoring and/or stonewalling embarrassing and/or illegal activities but the question of what happened to the president’s Uncle Omar has to take the cake when it comes to familial mysteries.
No one seems to know where he is.
You may recall Uncle Omar, actual name Onyango Obama, affectionately referred to as “Uncle Omar” in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father.
An illegal alien with a valid driver’s license and Social Security card, the 67 year old Kenyan was arrested in Framingham, Massachusetts on August 24th for a DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to yield the right of way. The first thing he told police was, ”I think I will call the White House,” presumably to chat with step-nephew Barack.
Held on a deportation detainer for two weeks, he was quietly released and when he appeared for a hearing he was “visibly amused” and “giggled” during the court proceedings, according to BostonHerald.com. He is scheduled for a November 17th pre-trial conference.
That was the last thing anyone saw or heard about Onyango-Omar who is no stranger to deportation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5981.)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Chicago, Chicago, It's a Fouled-up Town!
Chicago, Chicago, It's a Fouled-up Town!
You may have been able “to lose the blues in Chicago” in Sinatra’s day but nowadays you’re just as likely to lose your life.
Our president hails from the Windy City–by way of New York, California, Hawaii, and some still say Kenya–as do many of his top advisers and Chicago is now ruled by the heavy hand of his former Chief of Staff, Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel. Coincidentally, neither Obama nor Emanuel is doing very well.
Known for its beef, mobsters, and dead people voting, the Chicago metropolitan area with almost 10 million residents and the city proper with almost 3 million were awarded the dubious title of “Murder Capital of America.” Its murder stats show Chicago triples the rate of New York City and they’re near the top in robberies and aggravated assaults.
As for rapes, no one knows since for some reason Chicago doesn’t keep track of those numbers. Too many to count, maybe, or maybe it’s not worth the bother.
All in all, Chicago isn’t just Sinatra’s “toddling town,” it’s a teetering town.
Interestingly, considering developments in the Big Apple’s Zuccotti Park and across the nation, a mere 10 years ago Barack Obama was busily supporting and addressing Chicago anti-war protests comparable in acrimony if not the unruliness of the Occupy Wall Streeters. Twenty years ago, he would have organized them, according to Stanley Kurtz.
Today, Chicagoland is witnessing a resurgence of similar civil protests which go far beyond the relatively peaceful Occupy Chicago demonstrations. Those protests stand in sharp contrast to their fellows in New York, Portland, and elsewhere where the crazies have taken over and anarchy prevails.
Chicago, on the other hand, is experiencing something almost worse, a breakdown of both civil and moral behavior, a total disregard for common decency, a foreboding of things to come resulting from Mayor Emanuel’s weak-kneed response to violence in his city and his former boss’ endorsement of un-civil OWSers.
Back in April, an elderly man was standing on the platform of the Chicago Avenue Red Line subway station. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5977.)
You may have been able “to lose the blues in Chicago” in Sinatra’s day but nowadays you’re just as likely to lose your life.
Our president hails from the Windy City–by way of New York, California, Hawaii, and some still say Kenya–as do many of his top advisers and Chicago is now ruled by the heavy hand of his former Chief of Staff, Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel. Coincidentally, neither Obama nor Emanuel is doing very well.
Known for its beef, mobsters, and dead people voting, the Chicago metropolitan area with almost 10 million residents and the city proper with almost 3 million were awarded the dubious title of “Murder Capital of America.” Its murder stats show Chicago triples the rate of New York City and they’re near the top in robberies and aggravated assaults.
As for rapes, no one knows since for some reason Chicago doesn’t keep track of those numbers. Too many to count, maybe, or maybe it’s not worth the bother.
All in all, Chicago isn’t just Sinatra’s “toddling town,” it’s a teetering town.
Interestingly, considering developments in the Big Apple’s Zuccotti Park and across the nation, a mere 10 years ago Barack Obama was busily supporting and addressing Chicago anti-war protests comparable in acrimony if not the unruliness of the Occupy Wall Streeters. Twenty years ago, he would have organized them, according to Stanley Kurtz.
Today, Chicagoland is witnessing a resurgence of similar civil protests which go far beyond the relatively peaceful Occupy Chicago demonstrations. Those protests stand in sharp contrast to their fellows in New York, Portland, and elsewhere where the crazies have taken over and anarchy prevails.
Chicago, on the other hand, is experiencing something almost worse, a breakdown of both civil and moral behavior, a total disregard for common decency, a foreboding of things to come resulting from Mayor Emanuel’s weak-kneed response to violence in his city and his former boss’ endorsement of un-civil OWSers.
Back in April, an elderly man was standing on the platform of the Chicago Avenue Red Line subway station. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5977.)
To Recuse or not to Recuse?
To Recuse or not to Recuse
At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.
The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.
Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.
Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.
Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.
Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.
At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)
If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.
In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)
At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.
The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.
Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.
Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.
Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.
Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.
At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)
If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.
In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)
Monday, November 14, 2011
American Hitlers: Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood
American Hitlers: Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood
Among his many other crimes against humanity, including precipitating the Second World War which claimed 60 million lives, Adolph Hitler endorsed and funded eugenics experimentation, a “science” which in contemporary guise has been responsible for the loss of even more than sixty million lives as well as the loss of thousands of ”progressive” souls.
One of the greatest ironies of recent generations is that the very people Hitler sought to eradicate from the face of the Earth and other American liberals are avid supporters of America’s modern version of Der Führer’s nihilistic ambition to rid the world of Jews and other “indesirables,” the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Eugenics, a bio-social movement of the early twentieth century, ostensibly sought to improve human genetic composition of and effectively served as a blueprint for genocide without gas chambers.
In a HumanEvents.com article titled, “It Did Happen Here,” Daniel J. Flynn points out that, long before Hitler’s “Final Solution,” eugenics was widely practiced in most American states. North Carolina is currently in the process of compensating victims of forced sterilizations which went on for 45 years in that state. In Mecklenburg County, fully 80% of those victims were African-Americans in an effort “to improve the stock.”
Flynn cites early “progressives” such as the black hero W.E.B. DuBois, Orthodox Jew and professional anarchist Emma Goldman, and socialist author Edward Bellamy among others who advocated ”genetic cleansing.” However, by far the most influential was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5962.)
Among his many other crimes against humanity, including precipitating the Second World War which claimed 60 million lives, Adolph Hitler endorsed and funded eugenics experimentation, a “science” which in contemporary guise has been responsible for the loss of even more than sixty million lives as well as the loss of thousands of ”progressive” souls.
One of the greatest ironies of recent generations is that the very people Hitler sought to eradicate from the face of the Earth and other American liberals are avid supporters of America’s modern version of Der Führer’s nihilistic ambition to rid the world of Jews and other “indesirables,” the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Eugenics, a bio-social movement of the early twentieth century, ostensibly sought to improve human genetic composition of and effectively served as a blueprint for genocide without gas chambers.
In a HumanEvents.com article titled, “It Did Happen Here,” Daniel J. Flynn points out that, long before Hitler’s “Final Solution,” eugenics was widely practiced in most American states. North Carolina is currently in the process of compensating victims of forced sterilizations which went on for 45 years in that state. In Mecklenburg County, fully 80% of those victims were African-Americans in an effort “to improve the stock.”
Flynn cites early “progressives” such as the black hero W.E.B. DuBois, Orthodox Jew and professional anarchist Emma Goldman, and socialist author Edward Bellamy among others who advocated ”genetic cleansing.” However, by far the most influential was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5962.)
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Ethical Lapses at PSU, Ethical Void in D.C.
Ethical Lapses at PSU, Ethical Void in D.C.
A course in ethics was a requisite for a B.A. at Fordham University in the 1960′s and I have to confess I probably semi-slept through it.
It’s apparent that Ethics 101 either wasn’t required at Penn State University or that Nittany Lions coaches also slept through it. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Barack Hussein Obama has made such a farce of ethics in the federal government it’s hard to believe he understands the meaning of the word.
Ethics was a tough subject although its essence can be reduced to the study of moral principles and their applicability to rules of conduct.
Dictionary.com provides a more detailed definition: “That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.”
In turn, that definition can be summarized to doing the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.
Many wrongs are associated with recently-publicized events at PSU. Some may be termed ethical lapses of omission. They include Coach Joe Paterno’s failure to notify law enforcement authorities, university administrators covering up perfidious behavior, and Coach Mike McQueary’s grossly negligence in not interceding on behalf of a 10 year old boy being raped in a school shower room.
The most profound ethical failures committed have been attributed to Coach Jerry Sandusky, illegalities and moral tupitude which allegedly continued for some 15 years, from his initial molestations of young boys to McQueary’s witnessing Sandusky violating the ten year old.
Both Sandusky and McQueary are Penn State graduates but so too are the other 557,000 alumni of that immense and still great school. A few rotten apples can spoil a barrelful but a handful can’t spoil an outstanding university. Now that they have been exposed, they will be prosecuted and victims will be compensated even if that compensation can never wipe clear the memories of what they suffered.
Similarly, an unethical American president can stink up the White House but he can’t spoil a nation.
Obama and the administration he leads have been caught in numerous ethical breaches but, thanks to his mainstream media and stonewalling lackeys, so far they have gotten away with such breaches and only time will tell whether they ultimately ”come home to roost,” to quote his pastor of 20 years. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5954.)
A course in ethics was a requisite for a B.A. at Fordham University in the 1960′s and I have to confess I probably semi-slept through it.
It’s apparent that Ethics 101 either wasn’t required at Penn State University or that Nittany Lions coaches also slept through it. Meanwhile, in Washington, President Barack Hussein Obama has made such a farce of ethics in the federal government it’s hard to believe he understands the meaning of the word.
Ethics was a tough subject although its essence can be reduced to the study of moral principles and their applicability to rules of conduct.
Dictionary.com provides a more detailed definition: “That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.”
In turn, that definition can be summarized to doing the right thing just because it is the right thing to do.
Many wrongs are associated with recently-publicized events at PSU. Some may be termed ethical lapses of omission. They include Coach Joe Paterno’s failure to notify law enforcement authorities, university administrators covering up perfidious behavior, and Coach Mike McQueary’s grossly negligence in not interceding on behalf of a 10 year old boy being raped in a school shower room.
The most profound ethical failures committed have been attributed to Coach Jerry Sandusky, illegalities and moral tupitude which allegedly continued for some 15 years, from his initial molestations of young boys to McQueary’s witnessing Sandusky violating the ten year old.
Both Sandusky and McQueary are Penn State graduates but so too are the other 557,000 alumni of that immense and still great school. A few rotten apples can spoil a barrelful but a handful can’t spoil an outstanding university. Now that they have been exposed, they will be prosecuted and victims will be compensated even if that compensation can never wipe clear the memories of what they suffered.
Similarly, an unethical American president can stink up the White House but he can’t spoil a nation.
Obama and the administration he leads have been caught in numerous ethical breaches but, thanks to his mainstream media and stonewalling lackeys, so far they have gotten away with such breaches and only time will tell whether they ultimately ”come home to roost,” to quote his pastor of 20 years. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5954.)
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Ayes for Newt!
Ayes for Newt!
If “maximum covert operations” and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. First, however, the United States should consider “taking out their scientists” and “breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
The speaker of those words was addressing the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran which could threaten not only the State of Israel with obliteration but the entire Mideast with instability, and the United States with chaos.
The speaker was obviously not President Barack Hussein Obama who has demonstrated a distinct affinity for all things Islamic and who has waffled for months on the monumental issue of dealing with a nuclear, Muslim Iran.
The speaker was Newton “Newt” Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, inspiration for the 1994 “Contract with America, and current candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. He was responding to a question posed at Saturday night’s presidential debate in Spartansberg, South Carolina.
Newt doesn’t mince words, publicly articulating what all presidents practice but few admit to, that covert actions are sometimes necessary when the security of the country is involved, even when those actions require the pre-emptive elimination of threatening emplacements, and people, all done with plausible deniability.
As America slips into a second-rate economic status while China and India are gaining world ascendency, as our international influence wanes and pipsqueak nations such as Iran dare to bully us, as we wallow in a Carteresque malaise and our president embraces the anarchic Occupy Wall Street movement, we need a leader like Newt Gingrich. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5952.)
If “maximum covert operations” and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. First, however, the United States should consider “taking out their scientists” and “breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.”
The speaker of those words was addressing the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran which could threaten not only the State of Israel with obliteration but the entire Mideast with instability, and the United States with chaos.
The speaker was obviously not President Barack Hussein Obama who has demonstrated a distinct affinity for all things Islamic and who has waffled for months on the monumental issue of dealing with a nuclear, Muslim Iran.
The speaker was Newton “Newt” Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, inspiration for the 1994 “Contract with America, and current candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. He was responding to a question posed at Saturday night’s presidential debate in Spartansberg, South Carolina.
Newt doesn’t mince words, publicly articulating what all presidents practice but few admit to, that covert actions are sometimes necessary when the security of the country is involved, even when those actions require the pre-emptive elimination of threatening emplacements, and people, all done with plausible deniability.
As America slips into a second-rate economic status while China and India are gaining world ascendency, as our international influence wanes and pipsqueak nations such as Iran dare to bully us, as we wallow in a Carteresque malaise and our president embraces the anarchic Occupy Wall Street movement, we need a leader like Newt Gingrich. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5952.)
Richard Goldstone and Israel
Seventy three year old Richard Joseph Goldstone must be either a terminally-ill man, an extremely-befuddled man, or both. Seriously sick people tend to try to make amends before they meet their Maker; confused people often mistake fantasy for reality.
Goldstone, a former and eminent South African judge, made his mark on the bench by undermining South Africa’s apartheid laws with his rulings advancing the rights of that nation’s majority blacks, thereby leading to the end of discrimination by minority whites. He subsequently served as chief prosecutor for the U.N.’s trials of war criminals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
He is evidently an avid proponent of majority rule as well as a sincere advocate for the oppressed. Sometimes.
His advocacy came under fire from the world’s Jewish community and especially from Israel when Goldstone, a non-religious Jew, personally investigated the 3-week Israeli Gaza war of 2008-2009 and the United Nations issued the Goldstone Report, officially titled, “Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.”
The final version of that scathing report, issued in April 2009, charged Israel’s IDF with a systematic, official policy of inflicting undue punishment on civilians in Gaza and violating international humanitarian and human rights law. It also deleted most references to Hamas atrocities and focused on the disproportionality of Israel’s retaliation.
The investigation and report had been commisioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, a fact that made it suspect from the outset. The U.N. is notorious for its anti-Semitism and the UNHRC includes China, Cuba, and Pakistan among its 47 members but, still, Goldstone was a Jew and his religion added a significant credibility factor.
Not unexpectedly, he was reviled in Israel and elsewhere by Israel supporters as a wayward jurist suffering from a “moral inversion” who “preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel” and with worse epithets, all because he had dared expose Israeli war crimes against humanity, in Gaza just as he had exposed comparable crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the evil of apartheid in South Africa.
In effect, Goldstone was characterized as a Jew-hating Jew.
Fast forward to April of this year when the jurist had an epiphany, a religious attack, a re-examination of conscience, a re-evaluation of perceptions. Call it what you will, Goldstone retracted and contradicted much of what he had witnessed on his fact-finding mission to Gaza just two years earlier.
See his retraction, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5942.)
Goldstone, a former and eminent South African judge, made his mark on the bench by undermining South Africa’s apartheid laws with his rulings advancing the rights of that nation’s majority blacks, thereby leading to the end of discrimination by minority whites. He subsequently served as chief prosecutor for the U.N.’s trials of war criminals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
He is evidently an avid proponent of majority rule as well as a sincere advocate for the oppressed. Sometimes.
His advocacy came under fire from the world’s Jewish community and especially from Israel when Goldstone, a non-religious Jew, personally investigated the 3-week Israeli Gaza war of 2008-2009 and the United Nations issued the Goldstone Report, officially titled, “Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.”
The final version of that scathing report, issued in April 2009, charged Israel’s IDF with a systematic, official policy of inflicting undue punishment on civilians in Gaza and violating international humanitarian and human rights law. It also deleted most references to Hamas atrocities and focused on the disproportionality of Israel’s retaliation.
The investigation and report had been commisioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, a fact that made it suspect from the outset. The U.N. is notorious for its anti-Semitism and the UNHRC includes China, Cuba, and Pakistan among its 47 members but, still, Goldstone was a Jew and his religion added a significant credibility factor.
Not unexpectedly, he was reviled in Israel and elsewhere by Israel supporters as a wayward jurist suffering from a “moral inversion” who “preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel” and with worse epithets, all because he had dared expose Israeli war crimes against humanity, in Gaza just as he had exposed comparable crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the evil of apartheid in South Africa.
In effect, Goldstone was characterized as a Jew-hating Jew.
Fast forward to April of this year when the jurist had an epiphany, a religious attack, a re-examination of conscience, a re-evaluation of perceptions. Call it what you will, Goldstone retracted and contradicted much of what he had witnessed on his fact-finding mission to Gaza just two years earlier.
See his retraction, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5942.)
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Trials of PSU
The Trials of PSU
It’s been said that “Scandal is what one half of the world takes pleasure inventing, and the other half in believing.” That observation applies in spades to the ongoing scandal at Penn State University except for the fact those pleasuring in the PSU scandal have been woefully misdirected.
For inexplicable reasons, many people hate Penn State, perhaps for its immense size, its influence, or its football team.
Someone actually published a currently out of print screed on the subject titled, I Hate Penn State: 303 Reasons Why You Should, Too, a screed which may experience a revival in the wake of the events of the past six days in University Park, PA, regrettable events rapidly turning Happy Valley into an unhappy lowland.
It’s very evident neither the PSU child sex scandal nor its repercussions were invented and, at this point, the crimes against children and nature committed by former Nittany Lion defensive coach Jerry Sandusky must be termed ”alleged” until he is, hopefully, tried, convicted, and sentenced to live out his remaining days in some godforsaken Pennsylvania state prison.
(See “Paterno vs Sandusky, Mistakes vs. Predation,” http://tiny.cc/r4lqf.)
As more and more of Sandusky’s victims emerge–the count may reach twenty–media and public venom are developing into a tsunami. However, in a peculiar twist, the venom isn’t being directed against the alleged perpetrator of the vile crimes but against legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State University itself.
With Sandusky long retired, the PSU Board of Trustees peremptorily fired Paterno, by phone, on Wednesday. University president Dr. Graham Spanier was also cashiered. Paterno was dismissed for not doing enough to expose Sandusky’s predations, Spanier for covering them up. Combined with Athletic Director Tim Curley’s leave of absence and Senior PSU VP Gary Schultz’s resignation, that should have put the scandal to rest pending Sandusky’s trial.
Four heads on a platter proved to be nowhere near sufficient to sate the bloodlust of Penn State-haters in the media, however, anymore than the arrest of Jerry Sandusky satisfied them. Sandusky became almost incidental, his guilt as an accused serial homosexual child molestor almost irrelevant to the MSM even as new revelations surfaced.
Classified so far as rumors circulated by long-time PSU critic, Pittsburgh sports writer Mike Madden, Sandusky and his Second Mile Foundation were reputedly “pimping out young boys to rich donors” and Sandusky retired at the unusually young age of 55 ”in exchange for a cover-up” of his illicit activities.
Also seemingly irrelevant are the inactions of then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary.
His action, that is, informing Coach Paterno that he had personally witnessed Sandusky performing a sex act on a 10 year old boy in a shower room, has been duly noted and praised. Paterno reported the incident to Curley the next day yet he was fired.
McQueary’s grievous inactions of failing to intercede, of allowing the assault to continue, of not immediately calling the police–after flattening Sandusky and freeing the boy–speak volumes about McQueary and the Penn State administration.
Now an assistant coach, McQueary was scheduled to be on the sidelines in Saturday’s game with Nebraska alongside interim coach Tom Bradley before he received death threats from overworked fans crazed by Paterno’s dismissal. Aside from his failure to intervene in the first place, questions remain as to why he was not criticized for doing what Paterno did, going by the protocol book, and why he, too, wasn’t fired by PSU higher-ups.
Piling on, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5937.)
It’s been said that “Scandal is what one half of the world takes pleasure inventing, and the other half in believing.” That observation applies in spades to the ongoing scandal at Penn State University except for the fact those pleasuring in the PSU scandal have been woefully misdirected.
For inexplicable reasons, many people hate Penn State, perhaps for its immense size, its influence, or its football team.
Someone actually published a currently out of print screed on the subject titled, I Hate Penn State: 303 Reasons Why You Should, Too, a screed which may experience a revival in the wake of the events of the past six days in University Park, PA, regrettable events rapidly turning Happy Valley into an unhappy lowland.
It’s very evident neither the PSU child sex scandal nor its repercussions were invented and, at this point, the crimes against children and nature committed by former Nittany Lion defensive coach Jerry Sandusky must be termed ”alleged” until he is, hopefully, tried, convicted, and sentenced to live out his remaining days in some godforsaken Pennsylvania state prison.
(See “Paterno vs Sandusky, Mistakes vs. Predation,” http://tiny.cc/r4lqf.)
As more and more of Sandusky’s victims emerge–the count may reach twenty–media and public venom are developing into a tsunami. However, in a peculiar twist, the venom isn’t being directed against the alleged perpetrator of the vile crimes but against legendary football coach Joe Paterno and Penn State University itself.
With Sandusky long retired, the PSU Board of Trustees peremptorily fired Paterno, by phone, on Wednesday. University president Dr. Graham Spanier was also cashiered. Paterno was dismissed for not doing enough to expose Sandusky’s predations, Spanier for covering them up. Combined with Athletic Director Tim Curley’s leave of absence and Senior PSU VP Gary Schultz’s resignation, that should have put the scandal to rest pending Sandusky’s trial.
Four heads on a platter proved to be nowhere near sufficient to sate the bloodlust of Penn State-haters in the media, however, anymore than the arrest of Jerry Sandusky satisfied them. Sandusky became almost incidental, his guilt as an accused serial homosexual child molestor almost irrelevant to the MSM even as new revelations surfaced.
Classified so far as rumors circulated by long-time PSU critic, Pittsburgh sports writer Mike Madden, Sandusky and his Second Mile Foundation were reputedly “pimping out young boys to rich donors” and Sandusky retired at the unusually young age of 55 ”in exchange for a cover-up” of his illicit activities.
Also seemingly irrelevant are the inactions of then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary.
His action, that is, informing Coach Paterno that he had personally witnessed Sandusky performing a sex act on a 10 year old boy in a shower room, has been duly noted and praised. Paterno reported the incident to Curley the next day yet he was fired.
McQueary’s grievous inactions of failing to intercede, of allowing the assault to continue, of not immediately calling the police–after flattening Sandusky and freeing the boy–speak volumes about McQueary and the Penn State administration.
Now an assistant coach, McQueary was scheduled to be on the sidelines in Saturday’s game with Nebraska alongside interim coach Tom Bradley before he received death threats from overworked fans crazed by Paterno’s dismissal. Aside from his failure to intervene in the first place, questions remain as to why he was not criticized for doing what Paterno did, going by the protocol book, and why he, too, wasn’t fired by PSU higher-ups.
Piling on, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5937.)
Paterno vs Sandusky, Mistakes vs Predation
Paterno vs Sandusky, Mistakes vs Predation
The Penn State saga has been changing at a rapid clip since last Saturday when the PSU sex scandal broke but there’s been an odd morphing in media focus. MSM coverage became much more The Joe Paterno Story and its basis, Jerry Sandusky’s homosexual abuse of as many as 17 kids, has been all but lost in the shuffle.
Until Wednesday evening, there seemed to have been precious few people defending Joe Paterno so I thought I would.
However, following JoePa’s press release on Tuesday in which he expressed remorse for not having “done more,” taken more direct action in notifying police after he was initially told of alleged sex attack on a child by his defensive coordinator and indicated he would resign his position as head coach of the Nittany Lions, there was little to defend. Then the PSU Board of Trustees rendered that decision moot Wednesday evening by firing both Paterno and university president Graham Spanier.
Spanier will be no loss to Penn State. The effects of Paterno’s dismissal will be incalculable as will its root cause, Jerry Sandusky’s alleged, gross moral and ethical conduct over fifteen years.
Many people, far too many, take an inordinate delight in puncturing an icon, when a public figure is de-throned from a position of great prominence and reduced to the level of mere mortals. When that icon is a moral and ethical individual, which Mr. Joseph Vincent “Joe” Paterno was and still is, certain elements in our society are ecstatic.
Penn State University’s storied yet humble football coach would surely reject any suggestions that he was or ever should be ensconced on a throne or that he is immortal despite his outstanding record of achievements and his largely-unheralded list of contibutions to Penn State’s family of tens of thousands of students and hundreds of thousands of alumni.
I would have argued on his behalf and contended he should have stayed on at least until the end of the season because he’s not guilty of anything except perhaps being almost 85 years of age, 76 at the time he was advised of Sandusky’s actions. Paterno should have been allowed to retire on his own terms and to retain the honorable dignity he has always maintained both on and off the field but even icons have enemies.
The Bucks County grand jury exonerated him of any wrongdoing and commended him for immediately notifying Athletic Director Tim Curley of what he had been told. Curley and Gary Schultz, senior PSU VP for finance and business, were charged with a cover-up.
Nevertheless, the die had been cast and Paterno’s fate sealed when the Pennsylvania State Police Commisioner implied he was guilty of a lapse of “moral responsibility” by not contacting law enforcement officials directly and when he was accused of a greater interest in protecting the PSU “brand” than in protecting a child.
Both charges are reprehensible.
Correctly or incorrectly, Coach Paterno was following proper chain of command protocol in reporting to his higher up, Curley, and trusting the athletic director would fulfill his obligations. There is no basis to conclude he valued the safety of any brand over the safety of children, although there is merit in concluding he should have banished Sandusky from the campus, and especially from the shower rooms, until the matter was resolved even if they were still allegations.
The details of the retired defensive coach’s alleged serial sex crimes were initially widely publicized though they have been overshadowed by the mainstream media’s quick re-focusing on Paterno rather than on Sandusky. Apparently, destroying moral icons sells better than reporting yet another instance of homosexuals violating children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5931.)
The Penn State saga has been changing at a rapid clip since last Saturday when the PSU sex scandal broke but there’s been an odd morphing in media focus. MSM coverage became much more The Joe Paterno Story and its basis, Jerry Sandusky’s homosexual abuse of as many as 17 kids, has been all but lost in the shuffle.
Until Wednesday evening, there seemed to have been precious few people defending Joe Paterno so I thought I would.
However, following JoePa’s press release on Tuesday in which he expressed remorse for not having “done more,” taken more direct action in notifying police after he was initially told of alleged sex attack on a child by his defensive coordinator and indicated he would resign his position as head coach of the Nittany Lions, there was little to defend. Then the PSU Board of Trustees rendered that decision moot Wednesday evening by firing both Paterno and university president Graham Spanier.
Spanier will be no loss to Penn State. The effects of Paterno’s dismissal will be incalculable as will its root cause, Jerry Sandusky’s alleged, gross moral and ethical conduct over fifteen years.
Many people, far too many, take an inordinate delight in puncturing an icon, when a public figure is de-throned from a position of great prominence and reduced to the level of mere mortals. When that icon is a moral and ethical individual, which Mr. Joseph Vincent “Joe” Paterno was and still is, certain elements in our society are ecstatic.
Penn State University’s storied yet humble football coach would surely reject any suggestions that he was or ever should be ensconced on a throne or that he is immortal despite his outstanding record of achievements and his largely-unheralded list of contibutions to Penn State’s family of tens of thousands of students and hundreds of thousands of alumni.
I would have argued on his behalf and contended he should have stayed on at least until the end of the season because he’s not guilty of anything except perhaps being almost 85 years of age, 76 at the time he was advised of Sandusky’s actions. Paterno should have been allowed to retire on his own terms and to retain the honorable dignity he has always maintained both on and off the field but even icons have enemies.
The Bucks County grand jury exonerated him of any wrongdoing and commended him for immediately notifying Athletic Director Tim Curley of what he had been told. Curley and Gary Schultz, senior PSU VP for finance and business, were charged with a cover-up.
Nevertheless, the die had been cast and Paterno’s fate sealed when the Pennsylvania State Police Commisioner implied he was guilty of a lapse of “moral responsibility” by not contacting law enforcement officials directly and when he was accused of a greater interest in protecting the PSU “brand” than in protecting a child.
Both charges are reprehensible.
Correctly or incorrectly, Coach Paterno was following proper chain of command protocol in reporting to his higher up, Curley, and trusting the athletic director would fulfill his obligations. There is no basis to conclude he valued the safety of any brand over the safety of children, although there is merit in concluding he should have banished Sandusky from the campus, and especially from the shower rooms, until the matter was resolved even if they were still allegations.
The details of the retired defensive coach’s alleged serial sex crimes were initially widely publicized though they have been overshadowed by the mainstream media’s quick re-focusing on Paterno rather than on Sandusky. Apparently, destroying moral icons sells better than reporting yet another instance of homosexuals violating children. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5931.)
Monday, November 7, 2011
J'accuse Herman Cain and "Mr. Stone"!
J'accuse Herman Cain and "Mr. Stone"!
She needed a job and he offered one. When they were alone, he fondled her, forcibly french-kissed her, groped her, and guided her hand to his genitals.
No, those aren’t the opening lines from a steamy novel or the words of Herman Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek, the first of four of his alleged sexual harassment victims to come forward. Ms. Bialek claims she was shocked, I say shocked, when Cain put his hand up her skirt, “grabbed [her] head and brought it towards his crotch.”
Since Gloria Allred is in Ms. Bialek’s corner, can there be any doubt in her veracity?
However, the man who did the frenching, groping, and guiding was former Vice President Al Gore. His victim, massage therapist Molly Hagerty, described her encounter to Portland, Oregon police soon after tipsy Gore, acting like a giggling, “crazed sex poodle,” tried to seduce her in his Hotel Lucia room in 2006.
After Politico.com broke the unsubstantiated Herman Cain story, every member of Obama’s MSM in the country descended on the allegations as if it were manna from the gods of liberalism because Cain isn’t a Democrat liberal.
Just as with the initial revelations about Democrat Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky affair and Democrat John Edwards’ productive hanky panky with Rielle Hunter, the Portland Tribune was well aware of Molly Hagerty’s claims concerning Democrat Gore but chose not to publicize them despite the fact an official police report was filed and made public by TheSmokingGun.com.
In that report, when Gore ordered a late night massage at the Lucia, he was alleged to have used an alias, “Mr. Stone,” though he is described in the report as “Al Gore, former vice president of the United States of America” and charged with “alleged Sexual Assault.”
It’s not as if Portland was Gore’s first known instance of forcing tonsil hockey on an unwilling partner. While still VP, drunk at a New Year’s Eve party, Gore . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5924.)
She needed a job and he offered one. When they were alone, he fondled her, forcibly french-kissed her, groped her, and guided her hand to his genitals.
No, those aren’t the opening lines from a steamy novel or the words of Herman Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek, the first of four of his alleged sexual harassment victims to come forward. Ms. Bialek claims she was shocked, I say shocked, when Cain put his hand up her skirt, “grabbed [her] head and brought it towards his crotch.”
Since Gloria Allred is in Ms. Bialek’s corner, can there be any doubt in her veracity?
However, the man who did the frenching, groping, and guiding was former Vice President Al Gore. His victim, massage therapist Molly Hagerty, described her encounter to Portland, Oregon police soon after tipsy Gore, acting like a giggling, “crazed sex poodle,” tried to seduce her in his Hotel Lucia room in 2006.
After Politico.com broke the unsubstantiated Herman Cain story, every member of Obama’s MSM in the country descended on the allegations as if it were manna from the gods of liberalism because Cain isn’t a Democrat liberal.
Just as with the initial revelations about Democrat Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky affair and Democrat John Edwards’ productive hanky panky with Rielle Hunter, the Portland Tribune was well aware of Molly Hagerty’s claims concerning Democrat Gore but chose not to publicize them despite the fact an official police report was filed and made public by TheSmokingGun.com.
In that report, when Gore ordered a late night massage at the Lucia, he was alleged to have used an alias, “Mr. Stone,” though he is described in the report as “Al Gore, former vice president of the United States of America” and charged with “alleged Sexual Assault.”
It’s not as if Portland was Gore’s first known instance of forcing tonsil hockey on an unwilling partner. While still VP, drunk at a New Year’s Eve party, Gore . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5924.)
Global Climate Fraud
Global Climate Fraud
When 31,487 American environmental and climate scientists, 9,029 of whom hold PhDs, agree that ”limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind,” can they all be wrong?
If they are, that would mean the cockamamie claims of Al Gore, the IPCC, and the whole horde of “greenies” who have been claiming for years that CO2 emissions are hazardous to the planet are a crock.
When those scientists subscribe to the view that, “there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth,” it would mean that Gore and Company should be branded as criminals for knowingly advocating a plot which would deprive mankind of those benefits.
(See the petition which includes the identities and qualifications of the signers at http://www.petitionproject.org/.)
In point of fact, the global warmists/coolists/changeists–they and their ilk have pushed all of those senseless panics over the past three decades but will be referred to here as simply the warmists and their cause as global warming–are responsible for perpetrating a scam so massive that Bernie Madoff would blush for not thinking of it first.
The immediate occasion for citing The Petition Project, which began with some 17,000 signatories in the late nineties and which has, of course, been dismissed by the warmist lobby as fraudulent despite the identification of every signatory, is the recent brouhaha over what scientist said what and what did he mean about global warming.
UC Berkeley Professor Richard Muller, member of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) team, alleged last week that he and his team had concluded Mother Earth was indeed warming and temperatures had increased by almost one degree centigrade over the course of 60 years.
As the warmists exulted over that announcement, made just in the nick of time for the gathering of the U.N.’s climate summit in Durban, S.A., a BEST colleague of Prof. Muller’s took issue with his opinion. A day later, Britain’s DailyMail.com also rained on Muller’s warmist parade by pointing out that his fellow climatologist had basically called Muller’s claim bunk.
Professor Judith Curry, chairperson of the highly-prestigious University of Georgia’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said Muller had made “a huge mistake,” prof-speak for, Muller, you’re a ninny and/or a shill for the warmists. Curry also corrected Muller’s conclusions by adding factual analysis that there has been no global warming for at least ten years . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5918.)
When 31,487 American environmental and climate scientists, 9,029 of whom hold PhDs, agree that ”limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind,” can they all be wrong?
If they are, that would mean the cockamamie claims of Al Gore, the IPCC, and the whole horde of “greenies” who have been claiming for years that CO2 emissions are hazardous to the planet are a crock.
When those scientists subscribe to the view that, “there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth,” it would mean that Gore and Company should be branded as criminals for knowingly advocating a plot which would deprive mankind of those benefits.
(See the petition which includes the identities and qualifications of the signers at http://www.petitionproject.org/.)
In point of fact, the global warmists/coolists/changeists–they and their ilk have pushed all of those senseless panics over the past three decades but will be referred to here as simply the warmists and their cause as global warming–are responsible for perpetrating a scam so massive that Bernie Madoff would blush for not thinking of it first.
The immediate occasion for citing The Petition Project, which began with some 17,000 signatories in the late nineties and which has, of course, been dismissed by the warmist lobby as fraudulent despite the identification of every signatory, is the recent brouhaha over what scientist said what and what did he mean about global warming.
UC Berkeley Professor Richard Muller, member of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) team, alleged last week that he and his team had concluded Mother Earth was indeed warming and temperatures had increased by almost one degree centigrade over the course of 60 years.
As the warmists exulted over that announcement, made just in the nick of time for the gathering of the U.N.’s climate summit in Durban, S.A., a BEST colleague of Prof. Muller’s took issue with his opinion. A day later, Britain’s DailyMail.com also rained on Muller’s warmist parade by pointing out that his fellow climatologist had basically called Muller’s claim bunk.
Professor Judith Curry, chairperson of the highly-prestigious University of Georgia’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said Muller had made “a huge mistake,” prof-speak for, Muller, you’re a ninny and/or a shill for the warmists. Curry also corrected Muller’s conclusions by adding factual analysis that there has been no global warming for at least ten years . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5918.)
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Gay "Glee"
Gay "Glee"
Very little shocks me in our increasingly-bizarre, free-wheeling culture anymore.
Claims that the androgenous pop star Justin Bieber was statutorially raped and is suddenly a daddy at 18 don’t faze me since Justin probably lost his virginity years ago. Naked people publicly cavorting in New York City’s New Museum’s gigantic bathtub “art exhibit” don’t surprise me since, hey, it’s the Big Apple. San Francisco banning naked diners in restaurants since even liberals have a modicum of propriety and sense of revulsion at unsanitary conditions and obese exhibitionists.
I’m not even bothered when nitwits say outrageous things.
When Nancy Pelosi denies she has had plastic surgery and alleges President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2009 “Stimulus” saved the nation from a 15% unemployment rate as opposed to our currently obscene 9%, I pass it off as Botox side effects.
When DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz criticizes a proposed human life amendment to our Constitution as “extreme and radical,” when the Obama administration opposes inscribing a prayer endorsed by Democrat icon FDR on Washington’s World War II Memorial, when the FLOTUS contends the POTUS’ successful nominations of two extremist women to SCOTUS enabled Americans to “love whomever we choose,” I may gag but I’m far from shocked because I’ve heard much worse from Democrats.
However, I draw the line at “Glee,” the popular, prime time teen-oriented musical-comedy-drama on Fox television. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5911.)
Very little shocks me in our increasingly-bizarre, free-wheeling culture anymore.
Claims that the androgenous pop star Justin Bieber was statutorially raped and is suddenly a daddy at 18 don’t faze me since Justin probably lost his virginity years ago. Naked people publicly cavorting in New York City’s New Museum’s gigantic bathtub “art exhibit” don’t surprise me since, hey, it’s the Big Apple. San Francisco banning naked diners in restaurants since even liberals have a modicum of propriety and sense of revulsion at unsanitary conditions and obese exhibitionists.
I’m not even bothered when nitwits say outrageous things.
When Nancy Pelosi denies she has had plastic surgery and alleges President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2009 “Stimulus” saved the nation from a 15% unemployment rate as opposed to our currently obscene 9%, I pass it off as Botox side effects.
When DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz criticizes a proposed human life amendment to our Constitution as “extreme and radical,” when the Obama administration opposes inscribing a prayer endorsed by Democrat icon FDR on Washington’s World War II Memorial, when the FLOTUS contends the POTUS’ successful nominations of two extremist women to SCOTUS enabled Americans to “love whomever we choose,” I may gag but I’m far from shocked because I’ve heard much worse from Democrats.
However, I draw the line at “Glee,” the popular, prime time teen-oriented musical-comedy-drama on Fox television. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5911.)
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Revolting Muslims
Revolting Muslims
Islam, “The Religion of Peace,” has a peculiar approach to demonstrating the applicability of that description–unless firebombing a French newspaper, raping Norwegian women, and threatening and stabbing British MP’s are now condoned by the “Holy Prophet.”
Muslims have been revolting, in every sense of the word, for decades and not only during the Arab Spring. They are wreaking havoc throughout the Western world as well and the greatest irony in those upheavals is that the havoc is occurring in nations which welcomed them with open arms and open borders.
So much for misguided cultural diversity, so much for destructive multiculturalism, so much for fantasies of assimilation.
In France, Islamic terrorists showed their contempt for free speech by firebombing the offices of the leftist satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, (Charlie Weekly), in reaction to the weekly’s announced special edition to be titled, Sharia Hebdo “guest-edited” by none other than Muhammad, the “Holy Prophet” himself.
The editors had planned to satirize the first and probably last democratic Tunisian elections; Islamic sharia law was destined to become the dominant force in Tunisia and sharia has as much regard for democracy as it does for women. As for the proposed guest-editor, Muhammad had a great regard for war, mayhem, and his 8 year old child bride Aisha but “democracy” was a somewhat foreign concept to him.
It may have been an audacious idea for Charlie Hebdo and proved to be perilous as well when their office was hit with a Molotov cocktail and its website was hacked with a message criticizing irreverance toward “Islam’s almighty Prophet.”
Incidentally, one of America’s Leftist rags, Time magazine, chimed in on the fire bombing by attacking not the fire-bombers but Charlie Hebdo for “Islamophobic antics [which are] futile and childish.”
There may great sense of futility in Norway over its open invite to Muslims to come on over, become one of them, become a Norwegian, join their Nordic culture, and scrap their historic tendency for violence and the Qu’ran’s repugnance for and discrimination against the female gender.
The social experiment by ultra-liberal Norway isn’t working very well and the women of Oslo can attest to the fact that Muslim immigrants in Norway are far from childish. Brutal, violent, Muslim-ish, yes, childish, no.
A virtual rape-epidemic is in process in Oslo, already doubling 2010 incidents.
One member of the Norwegian Parliament, Oktay Dahl of the Conservative Party, risked a firebomb tossed by one of Norway’s new Muslim residents . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5902.)
Islam, “The Religion of Peace,” has a peculiar approach to demonstrating the applicability of that description–unless firebombing a French newspaper, raping Norwegian women, and threatening and stabbing British MP’s are now condoned by the “Holy Prophet.”
Muslims have been revolting, in every sense of the word, for decades and not only during the Arab Spring. They are wreaking havoc throughout the Western world as well and the greatest irony in those upheavals is that the havoc is occurring in nations which welcomed them with open arms and open borders.
So much for misguided cultural diversity, so much for destructive multiculturalism, so much for fantasies of assimilation.
In France, Islamic terrorists showed their contempt for free speech by firebombing the offices of the leftist satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, (Charlie Weekly), in reaction to the weekly’s announced special edition to be titled, Sharia Hebdo “guest-edited” by none other than Muhammad, the “Holy Prophet” himself.
The editors had planned to satirize the first and probably last democratic Tunisian elections; Islamic sharia law was destined to become the dominant force in Tunisia and sharia has as much regard for democracy as it does for women. As for the proposed guest-editor, Muhammad had a great regard for war, mayhem, and his 8 year old child bride Aisha but “democracy” was a somewhat foreign concept to him.
It may have been an audacious idea for Charlie Hebdo and proved to be perilous as well when their office was hit with a Molotov cocktail and its website was hacked with a message criticizing irreverance toward “Islam’s almighty Prophet.”
Incidentally, one of America’s Leftist rags, Time magazine, chimed in on the fire bombing by attacking not the fire-bombers but Charlie Hebdo for “Islamophobic antics [which are] futile and childish.”
There may great sense of futility in Norway over its open invite to Muslims to come on over, become one of them, become a Norwegian, join their Nordic culture, and scrap their historic tendency for violence and the Qu’ran’s repugnance for and discrimination against the female gender.
The social experiment by ultra-liberal Norway isn’t working very well and the women of Oslo can attest to the fact that Muslim immigrants in Norway are far from childish. Brutal, violent, Muslim-ish, yes, childish, no.
A virtual rape-epidemic is in process in Oslo, already doubling 2010 incidents.
One member of the Norwegian Parliament, Oktay Dahl of the Conservative Party, risked a firebomb tossed by one of Norway’s new Muslim residents . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5902.)
Friday, November 4, 2011
The MSM Discovers the OWS
The MSM Discovers the OWS
The mainstream media, currently Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media, has long specialized in selective reporting and commentary, highlighting stories and events which comfortably mesh with their liberal slant, overlooking or otherwise minimizing those that don’t.
The liberal print media has perfected that science of unethical journalistic malpractice by squeezing non-meshing stories into inch and a half boxes on pages 49 or 71 which few people read while the liberal broadcast and cable media simply ignore them since, after all, their time is limited.
Matt Drudge unearthed and publicized the whole, sordid Bill-Monica tale weeks before the MSM ever mentioned sleaze in the Oval Orifice and stained blue dresses. Bubba was their boy and they would do nothing to tarnish his aura. Sound familiar? Time reporter Nina Burleigh even offered Clinton a Lewinsky during his impeachment saga to thank him for keeping abortion legal.
Bubba wisely passed, I think.
Former presidential hopeful Jumpin’ Johnny Edwards didn’t pass on much in his pursuit of the 2008 Democrat nomination, least of all with Rielle Hunter. While his wife lay dying, he was kicking up his tarheels for months with Rielle, fathered her child, and paid her off, all under the unknowing noses of the keen investigative staffs of the MSM who didn’t want smarmy facts to get in the way of Edwards’ candidacy.
Ultimately, it took the National Enquirer to expose Edwards publicly after he exposed himself privately.
Yet, two years later, the mainstreamers were all over Republican Mark Sanford’s scandal when he was caught doing an Edwards with an Argentinian floozie instead of governing South Carolina or hiking the Appalachian Trail.
To paraphrase the motto of the degraded Old, Grey Lady, The MSM covers all the news it sees fit to cover.
In the latest example of skewed reporting, mainstream newsers covered the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations from Day One, but there’s MSM coverage and then there’s honest coverage.
Since the protests against greed were occurring in the belly of the greed beast–where at least half of Americans have invested their futures–and were taking place in the economic capital of the world and spreading like a plague throughout the country, the MSM could hardly avoid noticing, even if it was noticing selectively.
Now seven weeks old in New York, from the outset the demonstrations had an anarchic streak. Within days they began attracting more and more dregs of civilized society and as they contaminated the land they drew more and more neo-Nazis, neo-Communists, and those good, old-fashioned stalwarts of every social upheaval: revolutionaries, anti-Semites, cop-haters, skinheads, perverts, thieves, and vagrants.
However, what has become curiouser and curiouser in the past week is the liberal mainstreamers’ awakening to the growing chaos, not to the anarchic elements of that chaos but mainly to the rapes, the molestations, and the thievery going on in various OWS encampments when representatives of the so-called 99% took time outs from protesting and disupting to violate the human rights of their fellow ninety-nine percenters.
Those attacks on individual rights and safety were considered newsworthty, radical efforts to undermine the foundations of the nation were not. . . (Read more and see OWS photos at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5895.)
The mainstream media, currently Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media, has long specialized in selective reporting and commentary, highlighting stories and events which comfortably mesh with their liberal slant, overlooking or otherwise minimizing those that don’t.
The liberal print media has perfected that science of unethical journalistic malpractice by squeezing non-meshing stories into inch and a half boxes on pages 49 or 71 which few people read while the liberal broadcast and cable media simply ignore them since, after all, their time is limited.
Matt Drudge unearthed and publicized the whole, sordid Bill-Monica tale weeks before the MSM ever mentioned sleaze in the Oval Orifice and stained blue dresses. Bubba was their boy and they would do nothing to tarnish his aura. Sound familiar? Time reporter Nina Burleigh even offered Clinton a Lewinsky during his impeachment saga to thank him for keeping abortion legal.
Bubba wisely passed, I think.
Former presidential hopeful Jumpin’ Johnny Edwards didn’t pass on much in his pursuit of the 2008 Democrat nomination, least of all with Rielle Hunter. While his wife lay dying, he was kicking up his tarheels for months with Rielle, fathered her child, and paid her off, all under the unknowing noses of the keen investigative staffs of the MSM who didn’t want smarmy facts to get in the way of Edwards’ candidacy.
Ultimately, it took the National Enquirer to expose Edwards publicly after he exposed himself privately.
Yet, two years later, the mainstreamers were all over Republican Mark Sanford’s scandal when he was caught doing an Edwards with an Argentinian floozie instead of governing South Carolina or hiking the Appalachian Trail.
To paraphrase the motto of the degraded Old, Grey Lady, The MSM covers all the news it sees fit to cover.
In the latest example of skewed reporting, mainstream newsers covered the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations from Day One, but there’s MSM coverage and then there’s honest coverage.
Since the protests against greed were occurring in the belly of the greed beast–where at least half of Americans have invested their futures–and were taking place in the economic capital of the world and spreading like a plague throughout the country, the MSM could hardly avoid noticing, even if it was noticing selectively.
Now seven weeks old in New York, from the outset the demonstrations had an anarchic streak. Within days they began attracting more and more dregs of civilized society and as they contaminated the land they drew more and more neo-Nazis, neo-Communists, and those good, old-fashioned stalwarts of every social upheaval: revolutionaries, anti-Semites, cop-haters, skinheads, perverts, thieves, and vagrants.
However, what has become curiouser and curiouser in the past week is the liberal mainstreamers’ awakening to the growing chaos, not to the anarchic elements of that chaos but mainly to the rapes, the molestations, and the thievery going on in various OWS encampments when representatives of the so-called 99% took time outs from protesting and disupting to violate the human rights of their fellow ninety-nine percenters.
Those attacks on individual rights and safety were considered newsworthty, radical efforts to undermine the foundations of the nation were not. . . (Read more and see OWS photos at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5895.)
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Why They Fear and Hate Herman Cain
Why They Fear and Hate Herman Cain
They came for Donald Trump and buried him under a birth certificate. They went after Tim Pawlenty and ridiculed him as Mr. Milquetoast. They attacked ignored Ron Paul into a nonentity. They abused Michelle Bachmann for virtually everything she said or did. They convinced Chris Christie he was too fat to be president.
Because of his race, Herman Cain presented a very sensitive target to openly castigate so they mostly just called a black man anti-African-American and a token stooge for the Republicans, all the while concealing the fact they both feared and hated him.
“They,” the Democrat establishment, the Democrat mainstream media, their flacks, hacks, and lackeys in the news and entertainment world, were terrified to the core by this phenomenon, an independent, conservative, pro-life, pro-business, self-reliant Republican black man who threatened to turn their liberal world upside down.
They hate him for the threat he poses.
They hate Herman Cain because he represents a clear and present danger to the very foundations of today’s Democrat Party, to the class warfare Democrats have chosen as their primary campaign strategy, to the racial divide they have carefully constructed, to the parasitic dependency they have created, to their lock on African-American and other minority constituencies.
They fear and hate Herman Cain because he exposes Democrats for what are.
For the most part, Cain’s fellow African-Americans were delegated the task to smear him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5889.)
They came for Donald Trump and buried him under a birth certificate. They went after Tim Pawlenty and ridiculed him as Mr. Milquetoast. They attacked ignored Ron Paul into a nonentity. They abused Michelle Bachmann for virtually everything she said or did. They convinced Chris Christie he was too fat to be president.
Because of his race, Herman Cain presented a very sensitive target to openly castigate so they mostly just called a black man anti-African-American and a token stooge for the Republicans, all the while concealing the fact they both feared and hated him.
“They,” the Democrat establishment, the Democrat mainstream media, their flacks, hacks, and lackeys in the news and entertainment world, were terrified to the core by this phenomenon, an independent, conservative, pro-life, pro-business, self-reliant Republican black man who threatened to turn their liberal world upside down.
They hate him for the threat he poses.
They hate Herman Cain because he represents a clear and present danger to the very foundations of today’s Democrat Party, to the class warfare Democrats have chosen as their primary campaign strategy, to the racial divide they have carefully constructed, to the parasitic dependency they have created, to their lock on African-American and other minority constituencies.
They fear and hate Herman Cain because he exposes Democrats for what are.
For the most part, Cain’s fellow African-Americans were delegated the task to smear him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5889.)
The Madness of Queen Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
The Madness of Queen Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
Sorry to disillusion anyone but things aren’t always what they seem to be and are rarely what some people wish to be. That sad note of enlightenment applies especially to Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama.
All those fat kids out there whom the FLOTUS has been weaning off burgers and fries and turning on to kale wraps and grilled hummus will be disillusioned. All those kids who knocked on the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Halloween and were given raisins and dried fruit by President Barack Hussein Obama’s wife will be disheartened.
Nevertheless, truth must be told: Michelle Obama isn’t a very nice person and I know, I know, it’s ungentlemanly and rude to say such a thing.
Likewise, it’s unladylike to trash the nation that accorded you the opportunity to feel special by saying, a mere three years ago, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” and telling Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the bride of the president of the French Republic, a few months later what she thought of her First Lady job: “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”
Harry S Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” I would say, if you’re a malcontent, go back to Chicago!
I somehow doubt Mrs. Obama visits the White House kitchen very often except maybe to tell the chefs to be sure to check calorie counts on meals they prepare for the president–even as she gobbled up (1500 calorie, 141 grams of fat) braised short ribs while on one of her many vacations at Vail Village, Colorado and downed 1565 calories (cheeseburger, fries, chocolate shake,) on her July visit to D.C.’s Shake Shack.
LiveStrong.com described the ribs meal as “decadent.” They don’t know the half of Michellian decadence, and hypocrisy.
When any woman, any man, repetitively and publicly demonstrates a distaste for his or her country and her position, brazenly milks that unelected post for all it’s worth, and preaches one thing while practicing another, her class, her integrity, and her ”ladyhood” as well as her patrioism are called into question.
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson began life in modest surroundings as the daughter of a civil servant and a secretary. She rode that modesty to Princeton where she truly blossomed–into the closet radical she is today, a fact she hides admirably well.
However, try as she did, she couldn’t hide her senior thesis and her racially-charged praise for the Black Panthers, her endorsement of “the need for Blacks to separate themselves from White society in order to strengthen the Black community,” and assailed the “white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society.”
Never heard that? That’s not surprising but feel free to peruse “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community–A Thesis” here: http://tiny.cc/bnmtc and “Michelle in Hell” here http://tiny.cc/2pmw0
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson graduated Princeton and went on to wed Barack Hussein Obama and the rest is history, her history of bad-mouthing our country, of electioneering at Chicago voting venues, of hostessing lavish White House birthday bashes for her hubby, of poetry readings featuring black racists like “Common,” and of establishing records for profligate vacationing during lean times.
The thing is, Queen Michelle doesn’t give a damn about discretion or public perceptions of her conduct because she is confident Barack’s MSM will cover for her, which it has, again admirably.
Still, as an ostensible Christian, she must be at least minimally burdened by her behavior, a factor . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5868.)
Sorry to disillusion anyone but things aren’t always what they seem to be and are rarely what some people wish to be. That sad note of enlightenment applies especially to Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama.
All those fat kids out there whom the FLOTUS has been weaning off burgers and fries and turning on to kale wraps and grilled hummus will be disillusioned. All those kids who knocked on the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Halloween and were given raisins and dried fruit by President Barack Hussein Obama’s wife will be disheartened.
Nevertheless, truth must be told: Michelle Obama isn’t a very nice person and I know, I know, it’s ungentlemanly and rude to say such a thing.
Likewise, it’s unladylike to trash the nation that accorded you the opportunity to feel special by saying, a mere three years ago, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” and telling Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the bride of the president of the French Republic, a few months later what she thought of her First Lady job: “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”
Harry S Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” I would say, if you’re a malcontent, go back to Chicago!
I somehow doubt Mrs. Obama visits the White House kitchen very often except maybe to tell the chefs to be sure to check calorie counts on meals they prepare for the president–even as she gobbled up (1500 calorie, 141 grams of fat) braised short ribs while on one of her many vacations at Vail Village, Colorado and downed 1565 calories (cheeseburger, fries, chocolate shake,) on her July visit to D.C.’s Shake Shack.
LiveStrong.com described the ribs meal as “decadent.” They don’t know the half of Michellian decadence, and hypocrisy.
When any woman, any man, repetitively and publicly demonstrates a distaste for his or her country and her position, brazenly milks that unelected post for all it’s worth, and preaches one thing while practicing another, her class, her integrity, and her ”ladyhood” as well as her patrioism are called into question.
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson began life in modest surroundings as the daughter of a civil servant and a secretary. She rode that modesty to Princeton where she truly blossomed–into the closet radical she is today, a fact she hides admirably well.
However, try as she did, she couldn’t hide her senior thesis and her racially-charged praise for the Black Panthers, her endorsement of “the need for Blacks to separate themselves from White society in order to strengthen the Black community,” and assailed the “white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society.”
Never heard that? That’s not surprising but feel free to peruse “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community–A Thesis” here: http://tiny.cc/bnmtc and “Michelle in Hell” here http://tiny.cc/2pmw0
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson graduated Princeton and went on to wed Barack Hussein Obama and the rest is history, her history of bad-mouthing our country, of electioneering at Chicago voting venues, of hostessing lavish White House birthday bashes for her hubby, of poetry readings featuring black racists like “Common,” and of establishing records for profligate vacationing during lean times.
The thing is, Queen Michelle doesn’t give a damn about discretion or public perceptions of her conduct because she is confident Barack’s MSM will cover for her, which it has, again admirably.
Still, as an ostensible Christian, she must be at least minimally burdened by her behavior, a factor . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5868.)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
When Israel Attacks
When Israel Attacks
It hasn’t been been an “if” for a long time and the “when” now appears imminent. The dilemma for the United States remains, When Israel launches its long-anticipated tactical strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, what will America do?
Despite being beset with economic upheaval and by endless threats from its other Muslim neighbors, it’s nevertheless a foregone conclusion that Israel will soon replicate the September 6th, 2007 attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear weapons site which effectively ended the Assad regime’s pretensions of dominating the Mideast.
There is one significant difference between the al-Kibar strike by Israel’s IAF and the expected operation to eradicate Iran’s nuke capabilities, namely, al-Kibar preceded the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
The latest news out of Washington is that the unilateralism-averse Obama administration has been pressuring the U.N. Security Council and the two permanent members who have opposed tougher sanctions, China and Russia, to support American initiatives intended to forestall a unilateral attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Fat chance, as is the chance Israel will heed Obama’s importunings not to take out a growing and virtually-certain danger before it becomes an accomplished fact and much of the tiny Jewish state is decimated.
The latest news out of Tel Aviv is that Israel is developing ICBM capabilities and launched a test missile just two days after Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu again warned of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Those ominous developments followed reports Netanyahu has been working to firm up his cabinet’s endorsement of a first strike.
Israel is preparing for war.
Given international and IAEA awareness of Iranian progress in both missile technology and nuclear capabilities, Iran’s persistent declarations of wiping Israel off the face of the map, and their most recent vow to inflict “heavy damages to the US as well as to the Zionist regime” in the event of a pre-emptive strike, that pre-emption is a certainty.
The only uncertainty is how the United States should react. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5877.)
It hasn’t been been an “if” for a long time and the “when” now appears imminent. The dilemma for the United States remains, When Israel launches its long-anticipated tactical strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, what will America do?
Despite being beset with economic upheaval and by endless threats from its other Muslim neighbors, it’s nevertheless a foregone conclusion that Israel will soon replicate the September 6th, 2007 attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear weapons site which effectively ended the Assad regime’s pretensions of dominating the Mideast.
There is one significant difference between the al-Kibar strike by Israel’s IAF and the expected operation to eradicate Iran’s nuke capabilities, namely, al-Kibar preceded the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
The latest news out of Washington is that the unilateralism-averse Obama administration has been pressuring the U.N. Security Council and the two permanent members who have opposed tougher sanctions, China and Russia, to support American initiatives intended to forestall a unilateral attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Fat chance, as is the chance Israel will heed Obama’s importunings not to take out a growing and virtually-certain danger before it becomes an accomplished fact and much of the tiny Jewish state is decimated.
The latest news out of Tel Aviv is that Israel is developing ICBM capabilities and launched a test missile just two days after Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu again warned of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Those ominous developments followed reports Netanyahu has been working to firm up his cabinet’s endorsement of a first strike.
Israel is preparing for war.
Given international and IAEA awareness of Iranian progress in both missile technology and nuclear capabilities, Iran’s persistent declarations of wiping Israel off the face of the map, and their most recent vow to inflict “heavy damages to the US as well as to the Zionist regime” in the event of a pre-emptive strike, that pre-emption is a certainty.
The only uncertainty is how the United States should react. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5877.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)