Out of School Tales of Nuns and Other Educators
The nuns always warned us about telling tales out of school, tattling, gossiping but since I’ve long been out of school I feel I can do it although the following aren’t really tattle tales or gossip. They’re scary but true tales.
Arne Duncan, who never taught a class or wrote a lesson plan in his life but did attend the elite University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and majored in sociology at Harvard, later presided over the disintegration of the Chicago public school system for almost 10years.
Apparently because of that sociology degree and his outstanding Chicago failure, Duncan was tapped by President Obama in 2009 to be the nation’s Secretary of Education, the rough equivalent of hiring Yogi Berra to teach logic to baseball players.
Secretary Duncan experienced a rare attack of honesty for a politician when he recently conceded, “And the best ideas, I’ve always said, in education are never going to come from me or frankly from anyone else in Washington,” despite the fact his cabinet-level department is primarily charged with establishing United States educational policy.
Needless to say, Duncan qualified his admission of his own and Washington’s ineptitude by saying that the best ideas are “always going to come from great teachers, great principals at the local level” where people better understand their communities’ needs.
Duncan was inadvertently raising the question of why a federal education department, created as the brainchild of Jimmy Carter, is needed at all and why its budget has almost tripled in a decade even as the nation’s educational system is rapidly approaching levels considered unacceptable in the Third World.
He didn’t answer those unasked questions and didn’t have to. Teachers and their overbearing national union, the National Education Association and its affiliates, provide the answers every election cycle when they show up en masse to support Democrat candidates as payback for government, i.e. taxpayer, largesse.
As a nitwitty teacher proudly said one Election Day in our faculty room years ago in response to a query as to how she planned to cast her vote, “I don’t know. I just vote for whoever the union tells me to.”
Teachers and other Wisconsin public employees know full well whom not to vote for, newly-elected Republican governor of the Badger State, Scott Walker.
The dastardly, union-busting, benefit-reducing Walker, the same governor who has put his state on a path to fiscal sanity and has actually added 43,400 jobs to Wisconsin’s payrolls according to the CES, the Current Employment Statistics survey, discovered once again the depths which unionistas can plumb when he visited the Messmer Catholic School in Milwaukee.
Governor Walker and his state had already witnessed those depths last winter when union thugs caused millions of dollars in damages to the state Capitol building in Madison, ostensibly in protest of his fiscal proposals but also in protest of his fair and democratic election. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5325)
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Uncle Omar and Aunt Zeituni
Uncle Omar and Aunt Zeituni
They keep popping out of the woodwork.
Most of us have relatives we wish were related to other people. Unless we're Hispanic, few of us can claim or want to claim as familial relations people who break the law by sneaking into our country and then add insult to national injury by driving drunk.
Our president, Barack Hussein Obama, seems to have any number of such relatives, only two of whom have been caught. So far.
The latest is Obama's dear Kenyan uncle, Onyango Obama, who joins Obama's dear Aunt Zeituni Onyango as a felon. Uncle Onyango added drunk driving to his resume' whereas Aunt Zeituni has merely lived on the public dole for more than a decade.
Uncle Omar, as Nephew Barack called him in Dreams from My Father, is the half-brother of Barack’s late father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., full brother of Zeituni Onyango, and uncle to George Obama, another Senior offspring and half-brother to America’s president and current resident of a Nairobi ghetto, all of whom are Kenyan natives.
Barack Junior’s is a complicated family.
Omar apparently shares more than his half-brother’s genes; he shares Obama Senior’s propensity to drink and drive though Senior seemed to have done most of his drunk driving in Africa where he wrecked three cars, lost his legs in the second accident, and died in the third.
Somehow, Senior, Uncle Omar and Aunt Zeituni made their way to America, Senior long enough to make a baby in Hawaii. Poor George hasn’t gotten here as yet and subsists on a buck a week in his hovel.
Uncle Omar, 67, was charged with DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle and failure to yield the right of way when he rolled through a stop sign in Framingham, Massachusetts. The police noted his speech was slurred and he tested with a blood alcohol level of 0.14%, 0.6% over the limit. He denied he had been drinking, then admitted to imbibing two beers, a pretty unlikely quantity unless each brew was half a gallon.
The plot thickens.
Police subsequently discovered that Uncle Omar Obama had a valid driver’s license and Social Security identification but wasn’t supposed to be in the country in the first place. He’s an illegal alien and is currently being held on an immigration detainer, usually a prelude to deportation by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Apprised of the incident, Deval Patrick, the African-American governor of the Bay State, responded with a typically-unresponsive, politicly-motivated comment unrelated to the issue, “You know my stance: Illegal is illegal. We need comprehensive immigration reform.”
Don’t bet on Onyango Obama being shipped back to Kenya, though. He has a few aces up his sleeve, a nephew in D.C. and a sister in Boston.
Asked by police whom he would want to contact, Uncle Omar said,”I think I will call the White House,” which usually doesn’t accept collect calls and had no comment on the situation.
No doubt he will also drop a dime and call fellow Bostonian Zeituni who knows all the ins-and-outs on beating America’s feckless immigration system because she has already done it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5312)
They keep popping out of the woodwork.
Most of us have relatives we wish were related to other people. Unless we're Hispanic, few of us can claim or want to claim as familial relations people who break the law by sneaking into our country and then add insult to national injury by driving drunk.
Our president, Barack Hussein Obama, seems to have any number of such relatives, only two of whom have been caught. So far.
The latest is Obama's dear Kenyan uncle, Onyango Obama, who joins Obama's dear Aunt Zeituni Onyango as a felon. Uncle Onyango added drunk driving to his resume' whereas Aunt Zeituni has merely lived on the public dole for more than a decade.
Uncle Omar, as Nephew Barack called him in Dreams from My Father, is the half-brother of Barack’s late father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., full brother of Zeituni Onyango, and uncle to George Obama, another Senior offspring and half-brother to America’s president and current resident of a Nairobi ghetto, all of whom are Kenyan natives.
Barack Junior’s is a complicated family.
Omar apparently shares more than his half-brother’s genes; he shares Obama Senior’s propensity to drink and drive though Senior seemed to have done most of his drunk driving in Africa where he wrecked three cars, lost his legs in the second accident, and died in the third.
Somehow, Senior, Uncle Omar and Aunt Zeituni made their way to America, Senior long enough to make a baby in Hawaii. Poor George hasn’t gotten here as yet and subsists on a buck a week in his hovel.
Uncle Omar, 67, was charged with DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle and failure to yield the right of way when he rolled through a stop sign in Framingham, Massachusetts. The police noted his speech was slurred and he tested with a blood alcohol level of 0.14%, 0.6% over the limit. He denied he had been drinking, then admitted to imbibing two beers, a pretty unlikely quantity unless each brew was half a gallon.
The plot thickens.
Police subsequently discovered that Uncle Omar Obama had a valid driver’s license and Social Security identification but wasn’t supposed to be in the country in the first place. He’s an illegal alien and is currently being held on an immigration detainer, usually a prelude to deportation by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Apprised of the incident, Deval Patrick, the African-American governor of the Bay State, responded with a typically-unresponsive, politicly-motivated comment unrelated to the issue, “You know my stance: Illegal is illegal. We need comprehensive immigration reform.”
Don’t bet on Onyango Obama being shipped back to Kenya, though. He has a few aces up his sleeve, a nephew in D.C. and a sister in Boston.
Asked by police whom he would want to contact, Uncle Omar said,”I think I will call the White House,” which usually doesn’t accept collect calls and had no comment on the situation.
No doubt he will also drop a dime and call fellow Bostonian Zeituni who knows all the ins-and-outs on beating America’s feckless immigration system because she has already done it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5312)
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The Weird Sexual Worlds of Jim Carrey and Kathy Griffin
The Weird Sexual Worlds of Jim Carrey and Kathy Griffin
Whether the following videos featuring 49 year old Jim Carrey lusting in his heart and genitals for 22 year old Emma Stone and 50 year old Kathy Griffin fantasizing about sex with 17 year old Justin Bieber are pathetic jokes or not, they’re still creepy as well as singularly humorless.
The consensus seems to be that both Carrey and Griffin are serious in their respective overtures to Stone and Bieber primarily because, although both Carrey and Griffin are both supposed to be comics, neither is capable of acting this well.
The affable, twice-married grandfather Jim Carrey has had a number of movie hits, the last of which was four years ago–eons, by Hollywood standards–and has been linked with a slew of Hollywood beauties including Jenny McCarthy but has apparently hit a slough in that department as well.
His bizarre video addressed to Ms. Stone could be attributable to his admitted bouts of depression but is still inexplicable for a guy, even a star, who is almost half a century old.
In that vid “message,” Carrey gulps and confesses to the “all the way beautiful” Stone his desire to marry her and have “freckle-faced kids,” go camping, and reward her with daily sexual delights, a fantasy he concedes apologeticaly is hampered by his age. He wishes her “love and contentment” in life after mentioning his age-related difficulty in peeing, just the thing a 22 year old wants to hear about from a lover.
As weird as it is, Carrey’s video has to take second place to another videotaped confession by third-rate celebrity Kathy Griffin who was inspired by Carrey to articulate her own hidden desires for Justin Bieber. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5308.)
Whether the following videos featuring 49 year old Jim Carrey lusting in his heart and genitals for 22 year old Emma Stone and 50 year old Kathy Griffin fantasizing about sex with 17 year old Justin Bieber are pathetic jokes or not, they’re still creepy as well as singularly humorless.
The consensus seems to be that both Carrey and Griffin are serious in their respective overtures to Stone and Bieber primarily because, although both Carrey and Griffin are both supposed to be comics, neither is capable of acting this well.
The affable, twice-married grandfather Jim Carrey has had a number of movie hits, the last of which was four years ago–eons, by Hollywood standards–and has been linked with a slew of Hollywood beauties including Jenny McCarthy but has apparently hit a slough in that department as well.
His bizarre video addressed to Ms. Stone could be attributable to his admitted bouts of depression but is still inexplicable for a guy, even a star, who is almost half a century old.
In that vid “message,” Carrey gulps and confesses to the “all the way beautiful” Stone his desire to marry her and have “freckle-faced kids,” go camping, and reward her with daily sexual delights, a fantasy he concedes apologeticaly is hampered by his age. He wishes her “love and contentment” in life after mentioning his age-related difficulty in peeing, just the thing a 22 year old wants to hear about from a lover.
As weird as it is, Carrey’s video has to take second place to another videotaped confession by third-rate celebrity Kathy Griffin who was inspired by Carrey to articulate her own hidden desires for Justin Bieber. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5308.)
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Iranian, ESPN, and Collegiate Fruitcakes
Iranian, ESPN, and Collegiate Fruitcakes
The humorist Will Rogers is famous for saying, among other things, ”I never met a man I didn’t like.”
I feel certain Rogers was speaking generally and wasn’t excluding the fair sex when he said that, just as sure as I am that he had never met certain Iranian Muslims, ESPN producers, and Goshen College President John Brenneman, all of whom are eminently dislikable for various reasons and all of whom are certifiable fruitcakes, dependent, of course, on one’s definition of a “fruitcake.”
I’m not attempting here to further demean almost universally-despised, Christmas fruitcakes. I’m referring to loonies, people who have earned universal disapprobation via violent hypocrisy, (Iranian Muslims), racial agitation, (ESPN), or downright stupidity, (Brenneman).
The Iranians sort of have an excuse for being fruitcakes, sort of, since their duly-elected leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, virtually defines the term. Nevertheless, Islamic Iranian clerics have now outdone themselves in outlandish fruitcakery by seizing and burning every bible in their sorry land or, at least, every bible they can get their grubby hands on.
Still not recovered from the Crusades, which ended 720 years ago, Iran’s Mohabut News is reporting that Iran’s Ayatollah Hadi Jahangosha is worried about “the spread of Christianity among our youth” as disseminated by Christian satellite television and books, principally that nastiest of all books, the Bible.
Ayatollah Jahangosha doesn’t seem concerned a whit over Iran’s nuke program or his nation’s rogue status in the world or supplying weapons to every Muslim nut in the Mideast or promoting worldwide war or eradicating Israel but Christians are a problem. Reflecting his paranoia, the Islamic Republic of Iran is seizing and burning every Bible they can. (http://bit.ly/nSJnZs)
Someone should remind the good cleric of how upset Muslims were over an American pastor burning a few holy Korans last year. Maybe Pastor Jones didn’t burn enough of them?
Quite a few people are upset over ESPN’s coloring NFL quarterback Michael Vick white.
Vick was convicted and jailed for staging and engaging in dog-fighting, a bloody “sport” in which man’s best friends were trained to maim and kill other best friend’s for man’s entertainment.
Whether to mitigate Vick’s offenses, to stir the racial pot, or just to get viewers to tune in, ESPN created a digital mock-up of the African-American Vick as a white man . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5301)
The humorist Will Rogers is famous for saying, among other things, ”I never met a man I didn’t like.”
I feel certain Rogers was speaking generally and wasn’t excluding the fair sex when he said that, just as sure as I am that he had never met certain Iranian Muslims, ESPN producers, and Goshen College President John Brenneman, all of whom are eminently dislikable for various reasons and all of whom are certifiable fruitcakes, dependent, of course, on one’s definition of a “fruitcake.”
I’m not attempting here to further demean almost universally-despised, Christmas fruitcakes. I’m referring to loonies, people who have earned universal disapprobation via violent hypocrisy, (Iranian Muslims), racial agitation, (ESPN), or downright stupidity, (Brenneman).
The Iranians sort of have an excuse for being fruitcakes, sort of, since their duly-elected leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, virtually defines the term. Nevertheless, Islamic Iranian clerics have now outdone themselves in outlandish fruitcakery by seizing and burning every bible in their sorry land or, at least, every bible they can get their grubby hands on.
Still not recovered from the Crusades, which ended 720 years ago, Iran’s Mohabut News is reporting that Iran’s Ayatollah Hadi Jahangosha is worried about “the spread of Christianity among our youth” as disseminated by Christian satellite television and books, principally that nastiest of all books, the Bible.
Ayatollah Jahangosha doesn’t seem concerned a whit over Iran’s nuke program or his nation’s rogue status in the world or supplying weapons to every Muslim nut in the Mideast or promoting worldwide war or eradicating Israel but Christians are a problem. Reflecting his paranoia, the Islamic Republic of Iran is seizing and burning every Bible they can. (http://bit.ly/nSJnZs)
Someone should remind the good cleric of how upset Muslims were over an American pastor burning a few holy Korans last year. Maybe Pastor Jones didn’t burn enough of them?
Quite a few people are upset over ESPN’s coloring NFL quarterback Michael Vick white.
Vick was convicted and jailed for staging and engaging in dog-fighting, a bloody “sport” in which man’s best friends were trained to maim and kill other best friend’s for man’s entertainment.
Whether to mitigate Vick’s offenses, to stir the racial pot, or just to get viewers to tune in, ESPN created a digital mock-up of the African-American Vick as a white man . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5301)
Friday, August 26, 2011
Buffett's Bluffing
Buffett's Bluffing
. . . Unlike most carpenters, Buffett has, he says, cut off his progeny from his billions when he eventually shuffles off this mortal coil. Susan, Howard, and Peter Buffett can just shuffle for themselves, he says, when Warren bites the bullet and moves on up to the great corporation in the sky.
He might just as well sing, “If I were a billionaire/ And gave it all away/ Would you love me anyway/ Would you be my babies?”
Maybe they will, and maybe not since Buffett’s whole, politically-motivated charade, his pledge to give away 99% of his almost boundless wealth, most to be dispensed, with strings attached and in relative deibbles, to the philanthropic Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is an outrageous crock.
Borne of his new-found, George Soros-esque, socialistic, pseudo-egalitarianism and guilt over decades of milking the capitalist system for all it was worth, Buffett’s pledge is less a promise than a threat.
When octogenarians sniff their mortality, some seem to get social consciences even as their years tend to cloud their sanity.
Alternatively referred to as the Oracle of Omaha and the Sage of Omaha, the oracular, sagacious Buffett earned his billions as Chairman, CEO, and principal shareholder of the amazingly-successful American conglomerate, holding company, Berkshire Hathaway.
Just incidentally, Buffett indirectly made my neighbor a millionaire when Berkshire’s principal holding, Coca Cola, bought out his modest Coke delivery enterprise. For that, my neighbor is eternally grateful, even worshipful, of Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, and Coke, although he thinks Buffett’s professed, current political and economic views are asinine.
Good call, neighbor!
In conjunction with his 99% pledge which, even if fulfilled some day and which would leave him with a piddling $600,000,000 of his current $60 billion kitty, Obama buddy Buffett wants his fellow billionaires to cough up half their money for the common good, an invitation with as much likelihood of acceptance as Obama becoming a capitalist.
Knowing that Pollyannaish idea is a non-starter, he has other monetary plans up his sleeve which would threaten the livelihoods of millions.
Buffett made headlines with his as yet unfulfilled 99% giveaway as well as with his claim of paying 17.4% in federal taxes, a much lower rate than that paid by his secretary, and with his persistent insistence that the government undertaxes the rich even as it is in dire need of additional funding.
He ignores the truth that the upper echelons already pay 70% of federal taxes and 45% of those at the other end pay zilch and he doesn’t cite the primary cause of that funding shortfall–Obama’s profligacy. He also hasn’t offered to raise his secretary’s salary in compensation nor to write a check for ten billion or so to the Treasury Department to tide it over.
What he could do to help his country, and hasn’t . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5293)
. . . Unlike most carpenters, Buffett has, he says, cut off his progeny from his billions when he eventually shuffles off this mortal coil. Susan, Howard, and Peter Buffett can just shuffle for themselves, he says, when Warren bites the bullet and moves on up to the great corporation in the sky.
He might just as well sing, “If I were a billionaire/ And gave it all away/ Would you love me anyway/ Would you be my babies?”
Maybe they will, and maybe not since Buffett’s whole, politically-motivated charade, his pledge to give away 99% of his almost boundless wealth, most to be dispensed, with strings attached and in relative deibbles, to the philanthropic Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is an outrageous crock.
Borne of his new-found, George Soros-esque, socialistic, pseudo-egalitarianism and guilt over decades of milking the capitalist system for all it was worth, Buffett’s pledge is less a promise than a threat.
When octogenarians sniff their mortality, some seem to get social consciences even as their years tend to cloud their sanity.
Alternatively referred to as the Oracle of Omaha and the Sage of Omaha, the oracular, sagacious Buffett earned his billions as Chairman, CEO, and principal shareholder of the amazingly-successful American conglomerate, holding company, Berkshire Hathaway.
Just incidentally, Buffett indirectly made my neighbor a millionaire when Berkshire’s principal holding, Coca Cola, bought out his modest Coke delivery enterprise. For that, my neighbor is eternally grateful, even worshipful, of Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, and Coke, although he thinks Buffett’s professed, current political and economic views are asinine.
Good call, neighbor!
In conjunction with his 99% pledge which, even if fulfilled some day and which would leave him with a piddling $600,000,000 of his current $60 billion kitty, Obama buddy Buffett wants his fellow billionaires to cough up half their money for the common good, an invitation with as much likelihood of acceptance as Obama becoming a capitalist.
Knowing that Pollyannaish idea is a non-starter, he has other monetary plans up his sleeve which would threaten the livelihoods of millions.
Buffett made headlines with his as yet unfulfilled 99% giveaway as well as with his claim of paying 17.4% in federal taxes, a much lower rate than that paid by his secretary, and with his persistent insistence that the government undertaxes the rich even as it is in dire need of additional funding.
He ignores the truth that the upper echelons already pay 70% of federal taxes and 45% of those at the other end pay zilch and he doesn’t cite the primary cause of that funding shortfall–Obama’s profligacy. He also hasn’t offered to raise his secretary’s salary in compensation nor to write a check for ten billion or so to the Treasury Department to tide it over.
What he could do to help his country, and hasn’t . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5293)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The ACLU, the IACHR, and You
The ACLU, the IACHR, and You
It may be difficult for them to admit, but sometimes people end up in the wrong job, the wrong place, and on the wrong side of issues.
“Wrong,” of course, is a subjective term but sometimes it’s so obvious that people are misplaced that it’s impossible not to say they should be engaged in a different profession, office, position, or even located in a different country.
The conglomeration of odd folks at the “American” Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, is a prime case in point.
Recently, once again true to form, the ACLU demonstrated that they are anything but Americans and, if they harbor even a smidgen of self-respect and sense of honor should re-locate or, at the minimum, re-title their organization. They have rarely acted on behalf of American rights unless, that is, we consider terrorists and other reprobates deserving of liberties or if we believe American institutions such as Christmas are un-American.
This time around in a long history of anti-American advocacies, the ACLU lauded its victory in a “landmark,” disturbing, decision by an international tribunal against the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, and common sense in the case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States.
Jessica Gonzalez, now Lenahan, doesn’t seem to be a typical ACLU reprobate, just a malcontent dissatisfied with American jurisprudence.
With the enthusiastic assistance of the ACLU, Lenahan petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the IACHR, over a horrendous matter involving the murder of her three young daughters by her estranged husband.
On its website, the ACLU gave its version of the outcome: ”The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.” Actually, it is more a travesty and additional evidence that the ACLU has little if any regard for our law. Lenahan’s children were shamefully unprotected but no less so than the integrity of our Constitution.
Castle Rock, Colorado police were accused by Lenahan of ignoring her pleas for help twelve years ago when her husband defied a restraining order and took and shot to death their three girls. The import of that horror goes far beyond the act itself and SCOTUS’ 9-2 ruling in 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police protection.
Case closed? Not even close. Whatever one thinks of the Castle Rock police or the Supreme Court’s finding, what ensued was an ominous development for the United States.
Lenahan took her case to the ACLU which in turn sought intervention by the IACHR. That body, which “derives its authority from the Organization of American States Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights,” an organ of the Organization of American States, the OAS, separate and distinct from the United States, decided in her favor.
The IACHR deemed that Lenahan’s international human rights had been violated and had the further impertinence to also recommend that American law and American policies toward domestic violence should be changed. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5288)
It may be difficult for them to admit, but sometimes people end up in the wrong job, the wrong place, and on the wrong side of issues.
“Wrong,” of course, is a subjective term but sometimes it’s so obvious that people are misplaced that it’s impossible not to say they should be engaged in a different profession, office, position, or even located in a different country.
The conglomeration of odd folks at the “American” Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, is a prime case in point.
Recently, once again true to form, the ACLU demonstrated that they are anything but Americans and, if they harbor even a smidgen of self-respect and sense of honor should re-locate or, at the minimum, re-title their organization. They have rarely acted on behalf of American rights unless, that is, we consider terrorists and other reprobates deserving of liberties or if we believe American institutions such as Christmas are un-American.
This time around in a long history of anti-American advocacies, the ACLU lauded its victory in a “landmark,” disturbing, decision by an international tribunal against the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, and common sense in the case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States.
Jessica Gonzalez, now Lenahan, doesn’t seem to be a typical ACLU reprobate, just a malcontent dissatisfied with American jurisprudence.
With the enthusiastic assistance of the ACLU, Lenahan petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the IACHR, over a horrendous matter involving the murder of her three young daughters by her estranged husband.
On its website, the ACLU gave its version of the outcome: ”The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.” Actually, it is more a travesty and additional evidence that the ACLU has little if any regard for our law. Lenahan’s children were shamefully unprotected but no less so than the integrity of our Constitution.
Castle Rock, Colorado police were accused by Lenahan of ignoring her pleas for help twelve years ago when her husband defied a restraining order and took and shot to death their three girls. The import of that horror goes far beyond the act itself and SCOTUS’ 9-2 ruling in 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police protection.
Case closed? Not even close. Whatever one thinks of the Castle Rock police or the Supreme Court’s finding, what ensued was an ominous development for the United States.
Lenahan took her case to the ACLU which in turn sought intervention by the IACHR. That body, which “derives its authority from the Organization of American States Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights,” an organ of the Organization of American States, the OAS, separate and distinct from the United States, decided in her favor.
The IACHR deemed that Lenahan’s international human rights had been violated and had the further impertinence to also recommend that American law and American policies toward domestic violence should be changed. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5288)
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Observations on Crimes and the People Who Commit Them
Observations on Crimes and the People Who Commit Them
Criminality like poverty will always be with us. It doesn’t take an unemployed NASA scientist to realize that, as long as the human species reproduces unsavory malcontents, greedy thieves, and amoral sociopaths, some people will assault, rob, maim, and murder other people.
Crime and criminals exist in every socio-economic strata with those in the “upper classes” most often engaging in major thievery and embezzlement–like the master of the Ponzi scam, Bernie Madoff–although the rich and famous aren’t exempt from murderous escapades–like rock impresario Phil Spector.
Other classes are more likely to indulge in a wider variety of criminality, what some sociologists explain away as a consequence of their status: In effect, they steal because the devil or their mama made them do it and they maim, murder, and wreak havoc because they don’t know any better due to poor parenting, impoverishment, social inequities, and societal-legal discrimination.
All of that, of course, is hogwash. Poor criminals become criminals for the same fundamental reasons the rich become criminals: a lack of respect, for themselves, for the law, for common decency, and for other people.
The Irish were notorious criminals a century ago. The term “paddy wagons” dates to the nineteenth century and referred to New York City police vehicles used to transport often drunk and disorderly, legal Irish immigrants arrested during Civil War draft riots and, afterward, apprehended for petty thievery or worse misdeeds.
The Irish–and Italians, to a lesser extent–climbed out of that political rut because they gained, earned, and learned respect for themselves, etc.
Today, although it’s politically incorrect to articulate it and the FBI is no longer allowed to track crime on racial bases, the unfortunate truth is that African-Americans per capita are responsible for far more criminal activity than whites. This widely-understood, but minimized, ignored, and buried fact of criminal life was previously detailed in “Taboo! The Truth about Black Crime,” http://bit.ly/nPFZFm.
That said, it’s incontestable that, compared to whites, blacks represent a grossly disproportionate number of inmates in U.S. jails and prisons. However, the rate of black incarceration is not attributable to racism, as racial agitators contend with scant proof, but to the reality that African-Americans are disproportionately guilty of the commission of crimes.
That brings us back to the root question of, Why? In turn, the “why” leads us to the aforementioned dearth of respect and those same agitators who make their street creds–and all too frequently win elections--by perpetuating the racism myth as the cause . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5279)
Criminality like poverty will always be with us. It doesn’t take an unemployed NASA scientist to realize that, as long as the human species reproduces unsavory malcontents, greedy thieves, and amoral sociopaths, some people will assault, rob, maim, and murder other people.
Crime and criminals exist in every socio-economic strata with those in the “upper classes” most often engaging in major thievery and embezzlement–like the master of the Ponzi scam, Bernie Madoff–although the rich and famous aren’t exempt from murderous escapades–like rock impresario Phil Spector.
Other classes are more likely to indulge in a wider variety of criminality, what some sociologists explain away as a consequence of their status: In effect, they steal because the devil or their mama made them do it and they maim, murder, and wreak havoc because they don’t know any better due to poor parenting, impoverishment, social inequities, and societal-legal discrimination.
All of that, of course, is hogwash. Poor criminals become criminals for the same fundamental reasons the rich become criminals: a lack of respect, for themselves, for the law, for common decency, and for other people.
The Irish were notorious criminals a century ago. The term “paddy wagons” dates to the nineteenth century and referred to New York City police vehicles used to transport often drunk and disorderly, legal Irish immigrants arrested during Civil War draft riots and, afterward, apprehended for petty thievery or worse misdeeds.
The Irish–and Italians, to a lesser extent–climbed out of that political rut because they gained, earned, and learned respect for themselves, etc.
Today, although it’s politically incorrect to articulate it and the FBI is no longer allowed to track crime on racial bases, the unfortunate truth is that African-Americans per capita are responsible for far more criminal activity than whites. This widely-understood, but minimized, ignored, and buried fact of criminal life was previously detailed in “Taboo! The Truth about Black Crime,” http://bit.ly/nPFZFm.
That said, it’s incontestable that, compared to whites, blacks represent a grossly disproportionate number of inmates in U.S. jails and prisons. However, the rate of black incarceration is not attributable to racism, as racial agitators contend with scant proof, but to the reality that African-Americans are disproportionately guilty of the commission of crimes.
That brings us back to the root question of, Why? In turn, the “why” leads us to the aforementioned dearth of respect and those same agitators who make their street creds–and all too frequently win elections--by perpetuating the racism myth as the cause . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5279)
The Tribulations of Martin Luther King's Memorial and Memory
The Tribulations of Martin Luther King's Memorial and Memory
The Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial just can’t catch a break.
Twenty-five years in the making, the $120 million, 30 foot statue set on 4 acres near the northwest corner of the Tidal Basin may have its official, opening day ceremonies spoiled by Hurricane Irene but if that were the only element to tarnish the festivities it would be a blessing to King’s memory and his admirers.
The fact the representation of King, eleven feet taller than the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, was incongruously placed on the National Mall as the only monument not memorializing an American president or our fallen soldiers wouldn’t dismay those admirers who would think that all very fitting and proper but other facts could and should dismay them.
For example, the sculpture makes him look more like a ticked-off, giant Buddha than a black revolutionary, which is understandable in view of another fact, that the 16 ton statue was carved out of Chinese granite by Lei Yixin, a master sculptor from China’s Yunan province who includes on his resume’ two renderings of the late Chinese dictator, Chairman Mao Zedong.
One would have thought that King’s family would have insisted on an African-American sculptor to reflect his heritage and labors on behalf of blacks in America but one would then be wrong. His son, Martin Luther King III, is very supportive and claims, ”This particular artist: he has done a good job.”
Some non-family members have disagreed and protested that he would be “turning over in his grave” if he knew the truth. (http://tgr.ph/qAzu0P)
Of course, the King family has a vested interest, in addition to the obvious, in the memorial.
Financing for the project came principally from fundraisers at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Monument Foundation which has paid over $832,000 to the King family . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5275)
The Washington, D.C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial just can’t catch a break.
Twenty-five years in the making, the $120 million, 30 foot statue set on 4 acres near the northwest corner of the Tidal Basin may have its official, opening day ceremonies spoiled by Hurricane Irene but if that were the only element to tarnish the festivities it would be a blessing to King’s memory and his admirers.
The fact the representation of King, eleven feet taller than the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, was incongruously placed on the National Mall as the only monument not memorializing an American president or our fallen soldiers wouldn’t dismay those admirers who would think that all very fitting and proper but other facts could and should dismay them.
For example, the sculpture makes him look more like a ticked-off, giant Buddha than a black revolutionary, which is understandable in view of another fact, that the 16 ton statue was carved out of Chinese granite by Lei Yixin, a master sculptor from China’s Yunan province who includes on his resume’ two renderings of the late Chinese dictator, Chairman Mao Zedong.
One would have thought that King’s family would have insisted on an African-American sculptor to reflect his heritage and labors on behalf of blacks in America but one would then be wrong. His son, Martin Luther King III, is very supportive and claims, ”This particular artist: he has done a good job.”
Some non-family members have disagreed and protested that he would be “turning over in his grave” if he knew the truth. (http://tgr.ph/qAzu0P)
Of course, the King family has a vested interest, in addition to the obvious, in the memorial.
Financing for the project came principally from fundraisers at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Monument Foundation which has paid over $832,000 to the King family . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5275)
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
PETA: People Evolving Toward Assininity, Part Two
PETA: People Evolving Toward Assininity, Part Two
I admit that I don’t personally know many PETA people. One old acquaintance admitted PETA membership but couldn’t explain why she is a member. My barberette conceded PETAN sympathies and used Havaheart traps for a rodent issue until she realized she was simply spreading disease by re-locating what the Pied Piper of Hamlin did.
As noted in Part One, (http://bit.ly/ng9aR2), the mission statement of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals omits all reference to that animal designed to be the ruler of the animal pack, the animal intended by God to be at the top of the food chain, the only animal infused with an immortal soul, the human animal.
In lieu of concerns for humanity, PETA concentrates on saving and protecting lower and higher species in both the insect and animal worlds, from fleas to rats to poultry to wild birds to fish to baby seals to horses to sheep and all others in-between. It does allow for humane insect control and doesn’t seem to like backyard dogs very much since they tend to eat fleas, chickens, wild birds, and even sheep if they’re hungry enough.
According to its website, PETA primarily focuses “on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry.” http://bit.ly/9tndVi
That’s all very commendable and there is evidence that cruelty exists in those industries which should be prevented. However, in advocating on behalf of those animals PETA loses sight of people who greatly benefit from animal experimentation, for example, and the millions employed in those industries which PETA would shut down if it had its way.
Furthermore, for all its self-righteousness, that organization regularly engages in unconscionable excesses beyond warning that feeding meat to children is tantamount to child abuse and other outrages.
In Part One, I also noted that PETA people, with good reason, never directly proclaim that gnats, minnows, turkeys, possums, cows, et al. are equal in importance to human beings or that the many species of beasties that inhabit the planet hold equivalent planetary status to people.
PETA doesn’t say that because PETANs regard mosquitos, etc. as far superior to the human animal. They don’t hate, they don’t murder, riot, or commit mayhem and they don’t backbite, hold grudges, or vote although they often spread disease and their higher-up cousins have been known to maim and devour innocent people.
Despite its mission, PETA and its employees have also been exposed as hypocrites on a number of occasions.
In one of many instances, employees were indicted for animal cruelty and committing heinous–grossly unethical–acts of animal insensitivity. They have been accused of needlessly and surreptitiously euthanizing hundreds of animals, in at least one case because the workers reportedly wanted to party on New Year’s Eve.
See some of the horror stories at http://bit.ly/qmG9ey
The Sun News Network is reporting that PETA is spreading its wings–and other body parts–to encompass, one could say seduce, a wider audience. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5267)
I admit that I don’t personally know many PETA people. One old acquaintance admitted PETA membership but couldn’t explain why she is a member. My barberette conceded PETAN sympathies and used Havaheart traps for a rodent issue until she realized she was simply spreading disease by re-locating what the Pied Piper of Hamlin did.
As noted in Part One, (http://bit.ly/ng9aR2), the mission statement of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals omits all reference to that animal designed to be the ruler of the animal pack, the animal intended by God to be at the top of the food chain, the only animal infused with an immortal soul, the human animal.
In lieu of concerns for humanity, PETA concentrates on saving and protecting lower and higher species in both the insect and animal worlds, from fleas to rats to poultry to wild birds to fish to baby seals to horses to sheep and all others in-between. It does allow for humane insect control and doesn’t seem to like backyard dogs very much since they tend to eat fleas, chickens, wild birds, and even sheep if they’re hungry enough.
According to its website, PETA primarily focuses “on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry.” http://bit.ly/9tndVi
That’s all very commendable and there is evidence that cruelty exists in those industries which should be prevented. However, in advocating on behalf of those animals PETA loses sight of people who greatly benefit from animal experimentation, for example, and the millions employed in those industries which PETA would shut down if it had its way.
Furthermore, for all its self-righteousness, that organization regularly engages in unconscionable excesses beyond warning that feeding meat to children is tantamount to child abuse and other outrages.
In Part One, I also noted that PETA people, with good reason, never directly proclaim that gnats, minnows, turkeys, possums, cows, et al. are equal in importance to human beings or that the many species of beasties that inhabit the planet hold equivalent planetary status to people.
PETA doesn’t say that because PETANs regard mosquitos, etc. as far superior to the human animal. They don’t hate, they don’t murder, riot, or commit mayhem and they don’t backbite, hold grudges, or vote although they often spread disease and their higher-up cousins have been known to maim and devour innocent people.
Despite its mission, PETA and its employees have also been exposed as hypocrites on a number of occasions.
In one of many instances, employees were indicted for animal cruelty and committing heinous–grossly unethical–acts of animal insensitivity. They have been accused of needlessly and surreptitiously euthanizing hundreds of animals, in at least one case because the workers reportedly wanted to party on New Year’s Eve.
See some of the horror stories at http://bit.ly/qmG9ey
The Sun News Network is reporting that PETA is spreading its wings–and other body parts–to encompass, one could say seduce, a wider audience. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5267)
Monday, August 22, 2011
Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī
Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī
You may say Khadafy or Kadaffie and I may say Qadafi or Gadaffie but “Daffy” is definitely not an acceptable or applicable nickname for Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, in Arabic مُعَمَّر القَذَّافِي Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī, the Libyan despot, butcher of Libyans, mad dog of the Mideast, murderer of untold numbers of defenseless Americans and Europeans.
Mu, as I will refer to him since I refuse to pay him any respect by repetitively typing Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī is or was anything but daffy. Treacherous, vile, and peculiar yes, but daffy, no; he is or was as wily as a snake, as calculating as Barack Obama. Those alternative present and past tense verbs are necessitated by the fact no one knows as of the time of this writing whether he is alive or if he has already been killed like Obama killed another Muslim terrorist, Usama bin laden.
The only certainty right now, should Mu be in the welcoming arms of Allah, is that Obama with the assistance of Seal Team Six didn’t get him and it’s improbable that he screamed the Islamic war cry, “Alahu akbar!” before Libyan rebels chopped him up for dog food.
Arabs don’t especially like dogs.
It’s doubtful, too, that Mu will get his 72–or 50 virgins in paradise, depending on who’s counting–after he passes to the Great Islamic Beyond because Allah generally reserves that select group of toothless hags for true Muslim heroes and Mu is/was anything but heroic. Killing Christians and other infidels is one thing to Allah. Killing his fellow Muslims which Mu did with a bloody vengeance is quite another in the Islamic playbook.
Whatever Mu’s ultimate fate, a safe bet is that America’s current president will attempt to claim at least a degree of . . .
(Read more at . . . http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5262)
You may say Khadafy or Kadaffie and I may say Qadafi or Gadaffie but “Daffy” is definitely not an acceptable or applicable nickname for Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, in Arabic مُعَمَّر القَذَّافِي Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī, the Libyan despot, butcher of Libyans, mad dog of the Mideast, murderer of untold numbers of defenseless Americans and Europeans.
Mu, as I will refer to him since I refuse to pay him any respect by repetitively typing Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī is or was anything but daffy. Treacherous, vile, and peculiar yes, but daffy, no; he is or was as wily as a snake, as calculating as Barack Obama. Those alternative present and past tense verbs are necessitated by the fact no one knows as of the time of this writing whether he is alive or if he has already been killed like Obama killed another Muslim terrorist, Usama bin laden.
The only certainty right now, should Mu be in the welcoming arms of Allah, is that Obama with the assistance of Seal Team Six didn’t get him and it’s improbable that he screamed the Islamic war cry, “Alahu akbar!” before Libyan rebels chopped him up for dog food.
Arabs don’t especially like dogs.
It’s doubtful, too, that Mu will get his 72–or 50 virgins in paradise, depending on who’s counting–after he passes to the Great Islamic Beyond because Allah generally reserves that select group of toothless hags for true Muslim heroes and Mu is/was anything but heroic. Killing Christians and other infidels is one thing to Allah. Killing his fellow Muslims which Mu did with a bloody vengeance is quite another in the Islamic playbook.
Whatever Mu’s ultimate fate, a safe bet is that America’s current president will attempt to claim at least a degree of . . .
(Read more at . . . http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5262)
It's Not Easy Being White Today
It's Not Easy Being White Today
In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his justly-famous “I Have a Dream Speech” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in which he spoke the inspirational words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Widely described as a defining moment in the Civil Rights movement, almost half a century later, America’s first (semi-) black president has re-defined that moment and has made a mockery of King’s speech and those words in the process.
Barack Hussein Obama capped off two and a half years of racially-applied justice, demonstrably black favoritism, and expressions of anti-white sentiments by issuing an executive order convolutely entitled, “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.”
The stated purpose of the order is “to promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion.”
As Kermit the Frog is wont to moan, “It’s not easy being green.” It’s also not easy being white in Barack Hussein Obama’s America. The Washington Times clarified the White House directive in an editorial: “Whites need not apply” when it comes to employment with the nation’s largest employer. (http://bit.ly/qzYpGM)
The Times elaborated by pointing out that the ”diversity the government is seeking is not diversity of ideas, outlooks or work experiences. In contemporary political parlance, ‘diversity’ refers primarily to the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character” as evidenced by details in the executive order. It incorporates such language as, the federal government “must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.”
However, in a bald-faced effort to tilt the playing field, “the government will intensify programs that discriminate against white Americans by extending special privileges to everyone else.” Laughably, ”The order also says that ‘attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service,’ ” while abandoning even the semblance of a fair meritocracy.
The executive order was issued in absentia by the president; he was busily conducting the nation’s business from afar in Martha’s Vineyard where he could escape some of the reaction and political brickbats. Nevertheless, it effectively negates the import and spirit of King’s 1963 speech as well as make the feds the nation’s prime agency of discrimination.
Our federal government–virtually the only employer hiring in D.C.–will now hire exclusively on the bases of “diversity and inclusion,” code for skin color, a factor King felt abhorrent. By presidential decree, their character content and qualifications be damned.
The government initiative is all the more startling, and ironic, in that it was announced during the same week a black congressional Democrat who holds office primarily because she is black went on an unholy rant against her (semi-) black, Democrat president. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5257)
In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his justly-famous “I Have a Dream Speech” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in which he spoke the inspirational words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Widely described as a defining moment in the Civil Rights movement, almost half a century later, America’s first (semi-) black president has re-defined that moment and has made a mockery of King’s speech and those words in the process.
Barack Hussein Obama capped off two and a half years of racially-applied justice, demonstrably black favoritism, and expressions of anti-white sentiments by issuing an executive order convolutely entitled, “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.”
The stated purpose of the order is “to promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion.”
As Kermit the Frog is wont to moan, “It’s not easy being green.” It’s also not easy being white in Barack Hussein Obama’s America. The Washington Times clarified the White House directive in an editorial: “Whites need not apply” when it comes to employment with the nation’s largest employer. (http://bit.ly/qzYpGM)
The Times elaborated by pointing out that the ”diversity the government is seeking is not diversity of ideas, outlooks or work experiences. In contemporary political parlance, ‘diversity’ refers primarily to the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character” as evidenced by details in the executive order. It incorporates such language as, the federal government “must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.”
However, in a bald-faced effort to tilt the playing field, “the government will intensify programs that discriminate against white Americans by extending special privileges to everyone else.” Laughably, ”The order also says that ‘attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service,’ ” while abandoning even the semblance of a fair meritocracy.
The executive order was issued in absentia by the president; he was busily conducting the nation’s business from afar in Martha’s Vineyard where he could escape some of the reaction and political brickbats. Nevertheless, it effectively negates the import and spirit of King’s 1963 speech as well as make the feds the nation’s prime agency of discrimination.
Our federal government–virtually the only employer hiring in D.C.–will now hire exclusively on the bases of “diversity and inclusion,” code for skin color, a factor King felt abhorrent. By presidential decree, their character content and qualifications be damned.
The government initiative is all the more startling, and ironic, in that it was announced during the same week a black congressional Democrat who holds office primarily because she is black went on an unholy rant against her (semi-) black, Democrat president. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5257)
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Obama's Hopeless, Liberal Change
Obama's Hopeless, Liberal Change
There are liberals and there were liberals.
I’m talking here about American libs, not the British types who are a whole different set who have evolved from beliefs in classical liberalism to free thinkers, whatever that means, to what the new Brit PM calls his “conservative liberal” party, whatever that means.
Until relatively recently, British libs and American libs had one value in common: Without qualification, they cared for the well-being of their respective countries above all else, a sentiment absent today from the philosophy of America’s new liberals as epitomized by Barack Hussein Obama.
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a liberal. So, too, were the Happy Warrior, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, and a whole slew of other Democrats in the past half century, not inclusive of Lyndon Baines Johnson who governed by consensus until Dems turned against him for waging the Vietnamese War and conservatives rebelled because he refused to win that war.
Liberals in days gone by differed in many respects from their more conservative, Republican, opponents but they shared with that opposition a fundamental patriotism, a love of country which superseded base partisanship and the opportunings of special interests groups whose demands were contrary to the best interests of the country.
Not anymore.
That idyllic era came to an abrupt conclusion with Barack Hussein Obama although the end was presaged by Jimmy Carter’s inept politics of malaise and fearsome attack rabbits and Bill Clinton’s governing from the vantage points of what Dick Morris advised would best get him re-elected and how Monica Lewinsky could best service him.
Today, our president, elected despite his dubious credential of being the most liberal senator in the United States Senate during his remarkably brief two-year tenure in that august body, is locked in a death struggle.
His is certainly not a personal death struggle, to be sure, since he will no doubt outlive most of us thanks to his penchants for repetitive relaxation excursions to golf links, a multiplicity of family vacations in opulent locales, and a studied nonchalance as to the domestic and foreign perils the nation faces.
Obama’s stuggle primarily relates to the questions of whether to succumb to his instincts to abjectly cater to the insistent demands of his most restless constituencies or to head to the middle and again sucker a majority of 2012 voters into thinking he isn’t as radically liberal as he actually is.
He has many choices on his overflowing plate, including:
. Should he stay his economic course and promote additional monetary stimuli which fail to stimulate, advance job programs which only increase government employment, add even more regulatory constraints which strangle businesses, and allow the EPA to cripple any recovery with its mindless obsession with inconsequential environmental issues?
. Should he strive to win what he called the Afghanistan ”war of necessity” or bug out and abandon that country to Taliban repression and a return it to a terrorist haven? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5252)
There are liberals and there were liberals.
I’m talking here about American libs, not the British types who are a whole different set who have evolved from beliefs in classical liberalism to free thinkers, whatever that means, to what the new Brit PM calls his “conservative liberal” party, whatever that means.
Until relatively recently, British libs and American libs had one value in common: Without qualification, they cared for the well-being of their respective countries above all else, a sentiment absent today from the philosophy of America’s new liberals as epitomized by Barack Hussein Obama.
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a liberal. So, too, were the Happy Warrior, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, and a whole slew of other Democrats in the past half century, not inclusive of Lyndon Baines Johnson who governed by consensus until Dems turned against him for waging the Vietnamese War and conservatives rebelled because he refused to win that war.
Liberals in days gone by differed in many respects from their more conservative, Republican, opponents but they shared with that opposition a fundamental patriotism, a love of country which superseded base partisanship and the opportunings of special interests groups whose demands were contrary to the best interests of the country.
Not anymore.
That idyllic era came to an abrupt conclusion with Barack Hussein Obama although the end was presaged by Jimmy Carter’s inept politics of malaise and fearsome attack rabbits and Bill Clinton’s governing from the vantage points of what Dick Morris advised would best get him re-elected and how Monica Lewinsky could best service him.
Today, our president, elected despite his dubious credential of being the most liberal senator in the United States Senate during his remarkably brief two-year tenure in that august body, is locked in a death struggle.
His is certainly not a personal death struggle, to be sure, since he will no doubt outlive most of us thanks to his penchants for repetitive relaxation excursions to golf links, a multiplicity of family vacations in opulent locales, and a studied nonchalance as to the domestic and foreign perils the nation faces.
Obama’s stuggle primarily relates to the questions of whether to succumb to his instincts to abjectly cater to the insistent demands of his most restless constituencies or to head to the middle and again sucker a majority of 2012 voters into thinking he isn’t as radically liberal as he actually is.
He has many choices on his overflowing plate, including:
. Should he stay his economic course and promote additional monetary stimuli which fail to stimulate, advance job programs which only increase government employment, add even more regulatory constraints which strangle businesses, and allow the EPA to cripple any recovery with its mindless obsession with inconsequential environmental issues?
. Should he strive to win what he called the Afghanistan ”war of necessity” or bug out and abandon that country to Taliban repression and a return it to a terrorist haven? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5252)
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Pederasty and Pedophilia Codified by the APA
Pederasty and Pedophilia Codified by the APA
In case no one has noticed, there seems to be an inordinate interest in celebrities and in pedophilia on the internet. Information on Hollywood and its “stars” has long attracted attention but the pedo attraction has long been confined to fans of sick porno websites.
Not anymore.
On the day I posted “Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?” (http://bit.ly/r95ILx), concerning a Corey Feldman expose’ on rampant perversion involving “vultures” in Tinseltown who prey on child actors, traffic to this blogsite increased by almost 400%, not indisputable evidence of widespread popularity of my site but clear proof that all lecherous vultures aren’t in the movie-making biz.
It’s now come to light that the perversion is not confined to Hollywood–as if it ever were.
A highly prestigious medical organization is in process of endorsing, normalizing, and seeking to legalize grossly abnormal and currently illegal acts of adults having sex with children.
The pederastic National Association of Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the former homosexual Obama administration “Safe Schools” czar, Kevin Jennings, must be positively ecstatic over the move by the American Psychiatric Association, the APA.
Though still regarded as the virtual bible of shrinks, said APA terminally discredited itself and its DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, almost 40 years ago when it caved under unrelenting pressure from homosexuals to revise the DSM and change its diagnosis of homosexuality from “an abnormal mental disorder” to, well, just a matter of inclinational taste.
(See “Nature or Nurture,” http://bit.ly/pr6dfb, as well as various other pieces on the subject of the APA and how it has transformed psychiatry into pop-science on demand. It’s entirely plausible that the same disordered group which pressured the APA into altering a long-established diagnosis in 1973 now controls the APA.)
It wouldn’t be a stretch to believe that retreat from defending and defining normality to normalizing abnormality may very well represent one of the primary bases for the Western world’s disintegration, a moral disintegration to complement our economic and societal decline.
In 2011, under a somewhat different, also politically-correct pressure, the APA has caved once again.
This time the shrinks in charge are striving to accommodate Muslim inclinations to bugger kids . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5246)
In case no one has noticed, there seems to be an inordinate interest in celebrities and in pedophilia on the internet. Information on Hollywood and its “stars” has long attracted attention but the pedo attraction has long been confined to fans of sick porno websites.
Not anymore.
On the day I posted “Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?” (http://bit.ly/r95ILx), concerning a Corey Feldman expose’ on rampant perversion involving “vultures” in Tinseltown who prey on child actors, traffic to this blogsite increased by almost 400%, not indisputable evidence of widespread popularity of my site but clear proof that all lecherous vultures aren’t in the movie-making biz.
It’s now come to light that the perversion is not confined to Hollywood–as if it ever were.
A highly prestigious medical organization is in process of endorsing, normalizing, and seeking to legalize grossly abnormal and currently illegal acts of adults having sex with children.
The pederastic National Association of Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the former homosexual Obama administration “Safe Schools” czar, Kevin Jennings, must be positively ecstatic over the move by the American Psychiatric Association, the APA.
Though still regarded as the virtual bible of shrinks, said APA terminally discredited itself and its DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, almost 40 years ago when it caved under unrelenting pressure from homosexuals to revise the DSM and change its diagnosis of homosexuality from “an abnormal mental disorder” to, well, just a matter of inclinational taste.
(See “Nature or Nurture,” http://bit.ly/pr6dfb, as well as various other pieces on the subject of the APA and how it has transformed psychiatry into pop-science on demand. It’s entirely plausible that the same disordered group which pressured the APA into altering a long-established diagnosis in 1973 now controls the APA.)
It wouldn’t be a stretch to believe that retreat from defending and defining normality to normalizing abnormality may very well represent one of the primary bases for the Western world’s disintegration, a moral disintegration to complement our economic and societal decline.
In 2011, under a somewhat different, also politically-correct pressure, the APA has caved once again.
This time the shrinks in charge are striving to accommodate Muslim inclinations to bugger kids . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5246)
Friday, August 19, 2011
America's "Vacaying" First Family: A Portent?
America's "Vacaying" First Family: A Portent?
. . . As I’ve previously speculated, it may just be that Barack and Michelle smell major changes on their horizons, changes they believe in with as much intensity as they felt in 2008.
Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recently opined that Barack Hussein Obama isn’t wedded to his job as president and Obama has said much the same thing. He also predicted to Matt Lauer in February, 2009 that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not recover in 3 years.
See his prediction, and his subsequent retreat, here: http://bit.ly/qXlPtj
In view of the unfortunate reality that, 2 1/2 years into his tenure, the economy shows no signs of recovery and is swirling in the toilet, it makes sense that the Obamas are packing their bags even as they continue to milk the president’s job for all its worth.
Recent actions by the First Couple reinforce the idea that they are planning to vacate the premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on or about January 20th, 2013, or sooner should they get a better opportunity or if the president finally concedes ineptness and was unqualified to hold his office in the first place.
How else can we explain their contemptuous, callous disregard for the concerns of the American people during a critical time other than, one, either Obama simply wants out of the presidency or, two, he doesn’t have the slightest clue on what to do about the unemployment crisis, or both?
Now, no one could possibly begrudge the leader of the free world taking some R&R time and Allah only knows how hard Obama works–25/8, according to his bride!
Still, as in comedy, timing and appearances are everything in politics. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5240)
. . . As I’ve previously speculated, it may just be that Barack and Michelle smell major changes on their horizons, changes they believe in with as much intensity as they felt in 2008.
Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recently opined that Barack Hussein Obama isn’t wedded to his job as president and Obama has said much the same thing. He also predicted to Matt Lauer in February, 2009 that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not recover in 3 years.
See his prediction, and his subsequent retreat, here: http://bit.ly/qXlPtj
In view of the unfortunate reality that, 2 1/2 years into his tenure, the economy shows no signs of recovery and is swirling in the toilet, it makes sense that the Obamas are packing their bags even as they continue to milk the president’s job for all its worth.
Recent actions by the First Couple reinforce the idea that they are planning to vacate the premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on or about January 20th, 2013, or sooner should they get a better opportunity or if the president finally concedes ineptness and was unqualified to hold his office in the first place.
How else can we explain their contemptuous, callous disregard for the concerns of the American people during a critical time other than, one, either Obama simply wants out of the presidency or, two, he doesn’t have the slightest clue on what to do about the unemployment crisis, or both?
Now, no one could possibly begrudge the leader of the free world taking some R&R time and Allah only knows how hard Obama works–25/8, according to his bride!
Still, as in comedy, timing and appearances are everything in politics. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5240)
Louis Farrakhan Feeds Flash Mobs
Louis Farrakhan Feeds Flash Mobs
Is it racist to report the news truthfully and honestly?
President Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media doesn’t think so, as demonstrated in various articles on this weblog and as attested to by a rare and honorable African-American, Professor Walter E. Williams. Williams frankly acknowledges that the MSM censors and expurgates news by downplaying racial agitation and omitting the racial identities of criminals for a variety of reasons, most of which relate to political correctness dictating what Americans are entitled to know.
Nevertheless, the racial beat goes on.
Good Obamabuddy Reverend Louis Farrakhan, aka Calypso Louie, aka Louis Eugene Wolcott, aka the Prince of Rage, aka grand poohbah of the black racist-separatist Nation of Islam, by all indications is still a good buddy despite having asked the president of the United States, “Who the hell do you think you are?” for ostensibly opposing Libya’s Daffy Qaddafi.
Louie has again crawled out from under one of his palace rocks to stir his anti-American pot.
This time, Obama’s bud is beating the drum for the Fort Hood mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan who, like Farrakhan and his tribe, is really a good Muslim despite having slaughtered 13 people and wounding 30 others as he screamed, “Allahu Akbar!” Farrakhan defends the major since Hasan was only attacking American soldiers who are all raping and murderering Muslim women, and men, in the Mideast.
Never fazed by truth, Calypso Louie ignores the facts that 7 of Hasan’s victims were civilians and that the vast majority of our troops would never go near hygienically-challenged Iraqis and Afghanis unless they had to shoot them in the line of duty.
See Farrakhan’s spittle-ridden, hateful diatribe delivered to hooting and howling supporters here: http://bit.ly/nRUXaD.
Were Farrakhan and the president’s former pastor of 20 years, another reverend–for some reason they all seem to be reverends–Jeremiah Wright, the only black seditionists infesting our land, we could readily deal with and defeat them and their nefarious plots and tolerated conspiracies. However, they have a number of accomplices, some in high positions in our municipalities and even in our police departments.
All are as intent on subverting American justice, our laws, and our sense of equitable treatment of all citizens regardless of race and religion as Farrakhan, Wright, and Major Hasan.
In ”More Riotous Times in Obamaland,” http://bit.ly/p9gIJM, and other articles, I detailed some of the chaos erupting in our nation, everywhere from Alabama, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Now further upheavals have occurred.
All the incidents have three factors in common: The miscreants . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5236)
Is it racist to report the news truthfully and honestly?
President Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media doesn’t think so, as demonstrated in various articles on this weblog and as attested to by a rare and honorable African-American, Professor Walter E. Williams. Williams frankly acknowledges that the MSM censors and expurgates news by downplaying racial agitation and omitting the racial identities of criminals for a variety of reasons, most of which relate to political correctness dictating what Americans are entitled to know.
Nevertheless, the racial beat goes on.
Good Obamabuddy Reverend Louis Farrakhan, aka Calypso Louie, aka Louis Eugene Wolcott, aka the Prince of Rage, aka grand poohbah of the black racist-separatist Nation of Islam, by all indications is still a good buddy despite having asked the president of the United States, “Who the hell do you think you are?” for ostensibly opposing Libya’s Daffy Qaddafi.
Louie has again crawled out from under one of his palace rocks to stir his anti-American pot.
This time, Obama’s bud is beating the drum for the Fort Hood mass murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan who, like Farrakhan and his tribe, is really a good Muslim despite having slaughtered 13 people and wounding 30 others as he screamed, “Allahu Akbar!” Farrakhan defends the major since Hasan was only attacking American soldiers who are all raping and murderering Muslim women, and men, in the Mideast.
Never fazed by truth, Calypso Louie ignores the facts that 7 of Hasan’s victims were civilians and that the vast majority of our troops would never go near hygienically-challenged Iraqis and Afghanis unless they had to shoot them in the line of duty.
See Farrakhan’s spittle-ridden, hateful diatribe delivered to hooting and howling supporters here: http://bit.ly/nRUXaD.
Were Farrakhan and the president’s former pastor of 20 years, another reverend–for some reason they all seem to be reverends–Jeremiah Wright, the only black seditionists infesting our land, we could readily deal with and defeat them and their nefarious plots and tolerated conspiracies. However, they have a number of accomplices, some in high positions in our municipalities and even in our police departments.
All are as intent on subverting American justice, our laws, and our sense of equitable treatment of all citizens regardless of race and religion as Farrakhan, Wright, and Major Hasan.
In ”More Riotous Times in Obamaland,” http://bit.ly/p9gIJM, and other articles, I detailed some of the chaos erupting in our nation, everywhere from Alabama, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Now further upheavals have occurred.
All the incidents have three factors in common: The miscreants . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5236)
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Obama, Perry, and Presidential Speech
Obama, Perry, and Presidential Speech
The Obama White House is absolutely aghast, appalled, and chagrined but not over the president’s record low approval numbers or the unemployment rate. Instead, trashing about for something to distract the electorate from his monumental failures, Obama and his brain trust were all exercised ove their latest target, Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry and his ”inflammatory rhetoric” regarding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Perry had the temerity to suggest that if the Obama-Bernanke Fed prints more inflated greenbacks over the next year or so, prior to the general election, it would almost be “treasonous.”
Speaking in Iowa while President Obama was traversing the same region on what Mitt Romney called his “magical misery bus tour,” his taxpayer-funded, non-campaign trip in a million dollar, black-shrouded, Canadian-manufactured vehicle on his quest of votes next year, Perry said of Bernanke, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all will do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”
Gasp!
Those statements were interpreted by Obama’s primary, global news mass media supporter, Reuters, and by the White House as “threatening.” Not incidentally, the London-based, leftist-oriented Reuters has rarely printed a negative word or article about Obama although it verily overflowed with George W. Bush invective.
Also, to clarify, the Washington-based Federal Reserve System doesn’t print money, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing does. However, the 12 Federal Reserve banks serve as America’s central banking system and the Fed is responsible for destroying currency deemed unfit for circulation, a destructive task it has lately been accomplishing in more ways than one.
Newly-announced presidential candidate Perry was speaking extemporaneously in Iowa, absent an Obamian requisite teleprompter prop, when he issued his “threat,” which is far less threatening than a teleprompter malfunction would be to the president.
No doubt, Bernanke, re-appointed as Fed chairman by Obama, would be greeted in the Lone Star State for what he is, a shill for the administration and a “one-worlder” who has little fear of inflation or deflation and has vowed not to repeat past errors of the Federal Reserve which resulted in the Great Depression even as his monetary policies are heading us in the same direction, or worse.
No reasonable observer thinks Perry was seriously suggesting Bernanke would be physically assaulted in Texas and White House Press Hack Jay Carney was engaging in typically over-reactive, hyperbolic campaign rhetoric when he chastised the governor by saying, “I certainly think threatening the Fed chairman is not a good idea. . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5227)
The Obama White House is absolutely aghast, appalled, and chagrined but not over the president’s record low approval numbers or the unemployment rate. Instead, trashing about for something to distract the electorate from his monumental failures, Obama and his brain trust were all exercised ove their latest target, Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry and his ”inflammatory rhetoric” regarding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Perry had the temerity to suggest that if the Obama-Bernanke Fed prints more inflated greenbacks over the next year or so, prior to the general election, it would almost be “treasonous.”
Speaking in Iowa while President Obama was traversing the same region on what Mitt Romney called his “magical misery bus tour,” his taxpayer-funded, non-campaign trip in a million dollar, black-shrouded, Canadian-manufactured vehicle on his quest of votes next year, Perry said of Bernanke, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all will do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”
Gasp!
Those statements were interpreted by Obama’s primary, global news mass media supporter, Reuters, and by the White House as “threatening.” Not incidentally, the London-based, leftist-oriented Reuters has rarely printed a negative word or article about Obama although it verily overflowed with George W. Bush invective.
Also, to clarify, the Washington-based Federal Reserve System doesn’t print money, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing does. However, the 12 Federal Reserve banks serve as America’s central banking system and the Fed is responsible for destroying currency deemed unfit for circulation, a destructive task it has lately been accomplishing in more ways than one.
Newly-announced presidential candidate Perry was speaking extemporaneously in Iowa, absent an Obamian requisite teleprompter prop, when he issued his “threat,” which is far less threatening than a teleprompter malfunction would be to the president.
No doubt, Bernanke, re-appointed as Fed chairman by Obama, would be greeted in the Lone Star State for what he is, a shill for the administration and a “one-worlder” who has little fear of inflation or deflation and has vowed not to repeat past errors of the Federal Reserve which resulted in the Great Depression even as his monetary policies are heading us in the same direction, or worse.
No reasonable observer thinks Perry was seriously suggesting Bernanke would be physically assaulted in Texas and White House Press Hack Jay Carney was engaging in typically over-reactive, hyperbolic campaign rhetoric when he chastised the governor by saying, “I certainly think threatening the Fed chairman is not a good idea. . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5227)
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?
Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?
The 1937 Johnny Mercer golden oldie ”Hooray for Hollywood” has long been a staple on Oscar night when movie celebs of today and yesteryear wax misty-eyed at the memorable melody, totally oblivious that Mercer’s song was composed as a satire on stardom and the young hopefuls who pursue that elusive dream.
The lyrics have since been altered to eliminate lines denigrating Tinseltown such as those describing it as a place where ”any shop girl can be a top girl/If she pleases Mister Businessman” but the amoral nature of the place hasn’t changed.
The “casting couch” may have been replaced by a mattress along the lines of a Sealy Posturepedic as Gwyneth Paltrow has noted but, if anything, Hollywood is even sleazier now than it was 74 years ago. In addition to becoming a gay-loving, leftist-liberal stronghold, it’s also devolved into a haven for rapacious pedophiles according to former child star, Corey Feldman.
Now 40 and long past his roles in “Goonies,” “Stand By Me,” and “The Lost Boys,” Feldman loosed a blockbuster charge against the “vultures” in the entertainment industry during a “Nightline” interview: ”I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. . . it’s all done under the radar. It’s the big secret.”
If it ever were a secret, it’s a secret no more. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5223)
The 1937 Johnny Mercer golden oldie ”Hooray for Hollywood” has long been a staple on Oscar night when movie celebs of today and yesteryear wax misty-eyed at the memorable melody, totally oblivious that Mercer’s song was composed as a satire on stardom and the young hopefuls who pursue that elusive dream.
The lyrics have since been altered to eliminate lines denigrating Tinseltown such as those describing it as a place where ”any shop girl can be a top girl/If she pleases Mister Businessman” but the amoral nature of the place hasn’t changed.
The “casting couch” may have been replaced by a mattress along the lines of a Sealy Posturepedic as Gwyneth Paltrow has noted but, if anything, Hollywood is even sleazier now than it was 74 years ago. In addition to becoming a gay-loving, leftist-liberal stronghold, it’s also devolved into a haven for rapacious pedophiles according to former child star, Corey Feldman.
Now 40 and long past his roles in “Goonies,” “Stand By Me,” and “The Lost Boys,” Feldman loosed a blockbuster charge against the “vultures” in the entertainment industry during a “Nightline” interview: ”I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. . . it’s all done under the radar. It’s the big secret.”
If it ever were a secret, it’s a secret no more. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5223)
The Fantastical Wonderland of Barack Hussein Obama
The Fantastical Wonderland of Barack Hussein Obama
. . . Adeptly executing the blame game approach to governing, two weeks after he signed onto the bi-partisan debt ceiling agreement, Obama now calls the pact “a debacle” and blames “partisan brinkmanship” and plain old bad luck from overseas for his abject failures. (http://bit.ly/oexCxK)
A reality check: America’s economy was in the pits long before Europe’s upheavals, long before Japan’s tsunami and earthquake, long before the Mideast exploded, and long before Republicans made a half-hearted effort to effect fiscal sanity.
Next thing you know, our leader will be saying he really did close Gitmo, that he hasn’t really raised taxes, that Obamacare is constitutional, and that his bride has always been proud of her country.
Far more critical than any of those developments is a valid concern as to whether Obama is in his right mind when he contends he “reversed the recession.” That distorted thinking is contrary to all perceived reality and could be emblematic of an unbalanced mind which is significantly more dangerous than economies in upheaval, tsunamis, crazed Arabs, or angry Republicans!
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5219)
. . . Adeptly executing the blame game approach to governing, two weeks after he signed onto the bi-partisan debt ceiling agreement, Obama now calls the pact “a debacle” and blames “partisan brinkmanship” and plain old bad luck from overseas for his abject failures. (http://bit.ly/oexCxK)
A reality check: America’s economy was in the pits long before Europe’s upheavals, long before Japan’s tsunami and earthquake, long before the Mideast exploded, and long before Republicans made a half-hearted effort to effect fiscal sanity.
Next thing you know, our leader will be saying he really did close Gitmo, that he hasn’t really raised taxes, that Obamacare is constitutional, and that his bride has always been proud of her country.
Far more critical than any of those developments is a valid concern as to whether Obama is in his right mind when he contends he “reversed the recession.” That distorted thinking is contrary to all perceived reality and could be emblematic of an unbalanced mind which is significantly more dangerous than economies in upheaval, tsunamis, crazed Arabs, or angry Republicans!
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5219)
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rick Santorum on Abortion, Rape, Incest
Rick Santorum on Abortion, Rape, Incest
Former United States senator from Pennsylvania and current candidate for the GOP nomination for president Rick Santorum posed a very pertinent question at last Thursday’s Republican debate, pertinent but largely ignored by Obama’s mainstream media. Santorum asked why it was unacceptable in our nation to execute a convicted rapist yet legally condoned and fully permissible to kill the innocent product of rape.
Many states in America spare the lives of everyone from sadistic rapists to mass murderers because capital punishment is deemed barbaric in civilized society although snuffing out pre-born life is considered civilized even though the methods employed in abortions cause excruciating pain for the aborted.
That truth hasn’t fazed the City of San Francisco which is attempting to close pregnancy counseling centers which don’t provide and advocate abortions, http://bit.ly/qJgLGR, nor has it dissuaded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and others from pushing for more business.
Long before fetal pain was documented, former abortionist-turned-pro-lifer Dr. Bernard Nathanson released his graphic “Silent Scream” video which showed to any reasonable viewer the atrocious reality of abortion but, for political and personal reasons, relatively few people cared or chose not to care.
Santorum evidently cares a great deal and last Thursday cited a recent Supreme Court case in which the majority ruled a rapist could not be executed for that crime. That would be the same Court that decided in 1973 that a woman’s vague constitutional right to privacy superseded the right to life of a pre-born infant.
As Santorum said with regard to saving the rapist, “That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5213)
Former United States senator from Pennsylvania and current candidate for the GOP nomination for president Rick Santorum posed a very pertinent question at last Thursday’s Republican debate, pertinent but largely ignored by Obama’s mainstream media. Santorum asked why it was unacceptable in our nation to execute a convicted rapist yet legally condoned and fully permissible to kill the innocent product of rape.
Many states in America spare the lives of everyone from sadistic rapists to mass murderers because capital punishment is deemed barbaric in civilized society although snuffing out pre-born life is considered civilized even though the methods employed in abortions cause excruciating pain for the aborted.
That truth hasn’t fazed the City of San Francisco which is attempting to close pregnancy counseling centers which don’t provide and advocate abortions, http://bit.ly/qJgLGR, nor has it dissuaded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and others from pushing for more business.
Long before fetal pain was documented, former abortionist-turned-pro-lifer Dr. Bernard Nathanson released his graphic “Silent Scream” video which showed to any reasonable viewer the atrocious reality of abortion but, for political and personal reasons, relatively few people cared or chose not to care.
Santorum evidently cares a great deal and last Thursday cited a recent Supreme Court case in which the majority ruled a rapist could not be executed for that crime. That would be the same Court that decided in 1973 that a woman’s vague constitutional right to privacy superseded the right to life of a pre-born infant.
As Santorum said with regard to saving the rapist, “That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5213)
The Tea Party Serves Notice
The Tea Party Serves Notice
The American tea party movement, the Tea Party, the TPM, was founded on two guiding emotions, frustration and fear, frustration with how governments regard and treat the governed, fear that our leaders and the taxation they imposed were out of control and driving us into bankruptcy.
Both feelings have been proven well-grounded in recent weeks as illustrated by the farcical debt ceiling agreement with its obvious cop-out, the superduper committee, the subsequent Standard and Poors credit downgrade, and the unprecedented stock market upheaval.
The Tea Party arose initially in 2009 as a populist reaction to mindless bailouts, ineffectual stimuli, and an unconstitutional government takeover of health care but has evolved into much more than the Taxed Enough Already Party, as some wags have labeled it. The Tea Party has aroused fear in the liberal hearts of misplaced RINOs in the Republican Party and in the quaking, lost souls of spendthrift Democrats.
Demonstrating that fear, the Left has adopted a policy of demonizing Tea Partiers and their movement as seen most recently by our odd vice president describing them as terrorists, then apologizing for that calumny knowing full well the terrorist label will stick and the apology will soon be forgotten.
Then, some shrink on the leftist MSNBC termed the Tea Party angry, delusional, potentially violent idealists and compared them to the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik all because they want fiscal sanity in a vast sea of financial dementia. (http://bit.ly/qj2TPT)
Talk about insanity!
Senate Majority Leader Reid was no less out of touch when he predicted the Tea Party would fade away like old soldiers and “will lose a number of seats next year.” Poor Harry has apparently forgotten the TPM only came into its own in 2010 with the conservative avalanche in Congress and refuses to acknowledge that, after two years its supporters have surpassed the number of liberals in the nation.
That latter, chilling news for Dems comes to us via Gallup polls conducted July 27 and August 2. Gallup announced yet another stake through the liberal heart in earlier polls which found that 41% of Americans consider themselves conservatives versus 21% still foolish enough to admit to being liberals. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5206)
The American tea party movement, the Tea Party, the TPM, was founded on two guiding emotions, frustration and fear, frustration with how governments regard and treat the governed, fear that our leaders and the taxation they imposed were out of control and driving us into bankruptcy.
Both feelings have been proven well-grounded in recent weeks as illustrated by the farcical debt ceiling agreement with its obvious cop-out, the superduper committee, the subsequent Standard and Poors credit downgrade, and the unprecedented stock market upheaval.
The Tea Party arose initially in 2009 as a populist reaction to mindless bailouts, ineffectual stimuli, and an unconstitutional government takeover of health care but has evolved into much more than the Taxed Enough Already Party, as some wags have labeled it. The Tea Party has aroused fear in the liberal hearts of misplaced RINOs in the Republican Party and in the quaking, lost souls of spendthrift Democrats.
Demonstrating that fear, the Left has adopted a policy of demonizing Tea Partiers and their movement as seen most recently by our odd vice president describing them as terrorists, then apologizing for that calumny knowing full well the terrorist label will stick and the apology will soon be forgotten.
Then, some shrink on the leftist MSNBC termed the Tea Party angry, delusional, potentially violent idealists and compared them to the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik all because they want fiscal sanity in a vast sea of financial dementia. (http://bit.ly/qj2TPT)
Talk about insanity!
Senate Majority Leader Reid was no less out of touch when he predicted the Tea Party would fade away like old soldiers and “will lose a number of seats next year.” Poor Harry has apparently forgotten the TPM only came into its own in 2010 with the conservative avalanche in Congress and refuses to acknowledge that, after two years its supporters have surpassed the number of liberals in the nation.
That latter, chilling news for Dems comes to us via Gallup polls conducted July 27 and August 2. Gallup announced yet another stake through the liberal heart in earlier polls which found that 41% of Americans consider themselves conservatives versus 21% still foolish enough to admit to being liberals. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5206)
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Perils of Rick Perry
The Perils of Rick Perry
What do former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and current Texas Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry have in common?
Well, they’re both Protestants although Carter is a Baptist and Perry a Methodist. They’re both from the South, although Carter was a Deep Souther and Perry is a Southwesterner. They both served in the military, Carter in the Navy as a lieutenant, Perry in the Air Force as a captain. They have both been married to the same woman for a gazillion years.
As for their differences, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was a failed president and is a bigger failure in his quest for a decent legacy in his post-presidency. Carter is an unreconstructed liberal and Perry a committed conservative. Perry has been a wildly popular, successful three term governor, and he terrifies Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats because he represents everything Obama isn’t and threatens everything they have wrought for the past 31 months.
They needn’t fear Perry since, as of now, he hasn’t declared for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
Nevertheless, true to form and recent tradition, Perry has already been the object of pre-emptive attacks by Obama’s hatchet men (and women) in the mainstream media on virtually every issue he has supported and for every value to which he subscribes.
A pro-life, fiscal and social conservative Christian, Perry opposes same-sex marriage, all of which positions would be considered more than sufficient reasons to arouse the ire of America’s pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-atheistic, anti-Christian Left. He compounds that ire by supporting the State of Israel, a policy anathema to liberals who favor Palestinian rights and all things Muslim.
Demonstrating an amazing hypocrisy, the Left has gone so far as to ridicule Perry based on his less than stellar undergraduate grades at Texas A&M. His transcripts were somehow obtained by one of Obama’s staunchest lackeys, the HuffingtonPost.com via an unnamed source and reputedly show he had a number of “C” and “D” grades, in addition to a few “A’s.”
HuffPo made no reference in its story on Perry’s grades to Obama’s refusal to disclose his Columbia University transcripts but did find space to print a conveniently-unsubstantiated comment by another–or the same?–source who allegedly said of Perry, “This was not the brightest guy around. We always kind of laughed. He was always kind of a joke.” (http://huff.to/qXGesb)
Perry has also been criticized for switching political parties. He was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican apparently for the same reason Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan once said, he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left him. That puts Rick Perry in excellent company.
However, what sticks in the liberal craw most and will no doubt be their prime future focus should he choose to run next year are not his political, social, or fiscal views, his previous party affiliation or grades. Rather, his adamantly-Christian religious views which he proudly wears on his sleeve and publicly professes from the podium will be used in an attempt to disqualify him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5195)
What do former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and current Texas Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry have in common?
Well, they’re both Protestants although Carter is a Baptist and Perry a Methodist. They’re both from the South, although Carter was a Deep Souther and Perry is a Southwesterner. They both served in the military, Carter in the Navy as a lieutenant, Perry in the Air Force as a captain. They have both been married to the same woman for a gazillion years.
As for their differences, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was a failed president and is a bigger failure in his quest for a decent legacy in his post-presidency. Carter is an unreconstructed liberal and Perry a committed conservative. Perry has been a wildly popular, successful three term governor, and he terrifies Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats because he represents everything Obama isn’t and threatens everything they have wrought for the past 31 months.
They needn’t fear Perry since, as of now, he hasn’t declared for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
Nevertheless, true to form and recent tradition, Perry has already been the object of pre-emptive attacks by Obama’s hatchet men (and women) in the mainstream media on virtually every issue he has supported and for every value to which he subscribes.
A pro-life, fiscal and social conservative Christian, Perry opposes same-sex marriage, all of which positions would be considered more than sufficient reasons to arouse the ire of America’s pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-atheistic, anti-Christian Left. He compounds that ire by supporting the State of Israel, a policy anathema to liberals who favor Palestinian rights and all things Muslim.
Demonstrating an amazing hypocrisy, the Left has gone so far as to ridicule Perry based on his less than stellar undergraduate grades at Texas A&M. His transcripts were somehow obtained by one of Obama’s staunchest lackeys, the HuffingtonPost.com via an unnamed source and reputedly show he had a number of “C” and “D” grades, in addition to a few “A’s.”
HuffPo made no reference in its story on Perry’s grades to Obama’s refusal to disclose his Columbia University transcripts but did find space to print a conveniently-unsubstantiated comment by another–or the same?–source who allegedly said of Perry, “This was not the brightest guy around. We always kind of laughed. He was always kind of a joke.” (http://huff.to/qXGesb)
Perry has also been criticized for switching political parties. He was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican apparently for the same reason Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan once said, he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left him. That puts Rick Perry in excellent company.
However, what sticks in the liberal craw most and will no doubt be their prime future focus should he choose to run next year are not his political, social, or fiscal views, his previous party affiliation or grades. Rather, his adamantly-Christian religious views which he proudly wears on his sleeve and publicly professes from the podium will be used in an attempt to disqualify him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5195)
Saturday, August 6, 2011
More Riotous Times in Obamaland
More Riotous Times in Obamaland
A great, new product, “delicious little mints” called “Disappointmints” and depicting President Barack Hussein Obama in a classic pose and the caption, “This Is Change?” is on the market. Priced originally at $3.00, the capitalist pigs selling the confection jacked up the price to $5.00 and delayed delivery until September when demand for “Disappointmints” far exceeded the on-hand supply.
I won’t furnish the details on the on-line dealer since they say in their sales pitch, “Hey, we’ve been as big a fan of Barack Obama as anyone,” even if they add, ”But with each compromise for the sake of unity, ‘Yes we can’ looks more like ‘No he can’t.’ “
In point of fact, the president definitely can. The issue is more precisely, What has Obama done and therein lies the aptness of Disappointmints.
Among a multitude of other domestic and international failed initiatives, he has managed to effect a virtual state of siege in various American communities where blacks have run amok.
Two recent incidents are only the latest illustrative examples of how well Obama’s post racial civility is going.
Following riots and pandemonium earlier this year in and around his adopted town of Chicago, in Peoria, Ilinois, in Bessemer, Alabama, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, (see “Riotous Times in America,” http://bit.ly/l5QQr0), and in Des Moines, Iowa, (See “They Eyes Don’t Always Have It,” http://bit.ly/riDuRM), new eruptions broke out this past week in Philadelphia and again in Milwaukee.
A public transportation bus became the site of an insane shooting scene in Philadelphia after a male passenger chastised a mother for spanking her 2 year old for acting up on the bus. The passenger threatened to turn her in for abusing her child. The woman forestalled that notification by immediately grabbing her cell phone and making a call.
She disembarked at her stop with the assistance of her brother who cleared the way for two men who then loosed a fusillade of 14 bullets from an assault rifle and a handgun into the bus.
Watch the mayhem and the actions of the black mother and the black gunmen on a surveillance video: http://bit.ly/mZpAbf
Some people may have forgotten that Philly was the scene of the 2008Election Day white voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, one of whom said at the time that this is what you get with a black man in charge. That implications of that threat have become very clear and were accented by Obama’s Attorney General refusal to prosecute the Panthers and subsequent indications the DoJ wouldn’t pursue cases unless the aggrieved parties were minorities.
You may have forgotten all that but the new Philly gunman evidently didn’t nor could the residents of Milwaukee have forgotten what happened there last Friday since it was a virtual re-play of the Mayfair Mall mayhem in January with the qualification that this time the marauders were more violently focused at the Wisconsin State Fair. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5191)
A great, new product, “delicious little mints” called “Disappointmints” and depicting President Barack Hussein Obama in a classic pose and the caption, “This Is Change?” is on the market. Priced originally at $3.00, the capitalist pigs selling the confection jacked up the price to $5.00 and delayed delivery until September when demand for “Disappointmints” far exceeded the on-hand supply.
I won’t furnish the details on the on-line dealer since they say in their sales pitch, “Hey, we’ve been as big a fan of Barack Obama as anyone,” even if they add, ”But with each compromise for the sake of unity, ‘Yes we can’ looks more like ‘No he can’t.’ “
In point of fact, the president definitely can. The issue is more precisely, What has Obama done and therein lies the aptness of Disappointmints.
Among a multitude of other domestic and international failed initiatives, he has managed to effect a virtual state of siege in various American communities where blacks have run amok.
Two recent incidents are only the latest illustrative examples of how well Obama’s post racial civility is going.
Following riots and pandemonium earlier this year in and around his adopted town of Chicago, in Peoria, Ilinois, in Bessemer, Alabama, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, (see “Riotous Times in America,” http://bit.ly/l5QQr0), and in Des Moines, Iowa, (See “They Eyes Don’t Always Have It,” http://bit.ly/riDuRM), new eruptions broke out this past week in Philadelphia and again in Milwaukee.
A public transportation bus became the site of an insane shooting scene in Philadelphia after a male passenger chastised a mother for spanking her 2 year old for acting up on the bus. The passenger threatened to turn her in for abusing her child. The woman forestalled that notification by immediately grabbing her cell phone and making a call.
She disembarked at her stop with the assistance of her brother who cleared the way for two men who then loosed a fusillade of 14 bullets from an assault rifle and a handgun into the bus.
Watch the mayhem and the actions of the black mother and the black gunmen on a surveillance video: http://bit.ly/mZpAbf
Some people may have forgotten that Philly was the scene of the 2008Election Day white voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, one of whom said at the time that this is what you get with a black man in charge. That implications of that threat have become very clear and were accented by Obama’s Attorney General refusal to prosecute the Panthers and subsequent indications the DoJ wouldn’t pursue cases unless the aggrieved parties were minorities.
You may have forgotten all that but the new Philly gunman evidently didn’t nor could the residents of Milwaukee have forgotten what happened there last Friday since it was a virtual re-play of the Mayfair Mall mayhem in January with the qualification that this time the marauders were more violently focused at the Wisconsin State Fair. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5191)
Friday, August 5, 2011
Dang! I Missed Obama's Birthday Bash!
Dang! I Missed Obama's Birthday Bash!
I’m annoyed with myself beyond words!
Not only did I miss the event of the week, if not the month, but I had received a personal, not engraved and emailed but still special, invite from Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama–Michelle Robinson LaVaughn Obama–to say a few words on a 50th birthday card congratulations to her hubby.
And I forgot!
I wasn’t invited to the party itself but from all reports it was the shindig of the summer season, a bacchanal rivaling Emperor Nero without the sex part of a true bacchanalia but befitting the honored Obama and the distinguished guests. Everyone who is anyone in Hollywood and the worlds of hip hop, music, television and politics was there and they were even dancing barefoot in the Rose Garden!
No one reported seeing any common folk there nor observing America’s new emperor fiddling although the fires from America burning could be seen from a distance. However, back to my invite.
Adding to the seductive qualities of the invitation, Michelle assured respondents that their comments would be delivered to the president–and who could resist that attraction, aside from those who would send him carefully chosen observations that would result in a visit from the Secret Service?
As Mrs. O. so graciously expressed it on her invitation, she and “the girls,” presumably those same girls, Sasha and Malia Obama, whom Barry had repeatedly pledged never to exploit for political purposes, wanted me and, okay, a few others, ”to wish him a happy birthday by signing his card, and sharing why you’re on this journey with us.”
The only “journey” I know Barry and his clan are leading us on is to Hell so I was surprised at Michelle’s offer to allow me to send him my greetings.
The FLOTUS also made specific mention of her hub’s stresses and aging under the pressure of taking the nation down the road to perdition, although she didn’t phrase it exactly that way. What she did say was that the aging process was “more proof that he’s earning every last one of those gray hairs.”
Working 25 hours a day, 8 days a week can do that to a guy and it’s hard to see how Obama does it, in between his golf outings and vacations, but she wouldn’t lie even if she made no reference to the age-enhancing properties of unbleached flour. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5185)
I’m annoyed with myself beyond words!
Not only did I miss the event of the week, if not the month, but I had received a personal, not engraved and emailed but still special, invite from Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama–Michelle Robinson LaVaughn Obama–to say a few words on a 50th birthday card congratulations to her hubby.
And I forgot!
I wasn’t invited to the party itself but from all reports it was the shindig of the summer season, a bacchanal rivaling Emperor Nero without the sex part of a true bacchanalia but befitting the honored Obama and the distinguished guests. Everyone who is anyone in Hollywood and the worlds of hip hop, music, television and politics was there and they were even dancing barefoot in the Rose Garden!
No one reported seeing any common folk there nor observing America’s new emperor fiddling although the fires from America burning could be seen from a distance. However, back to my invite.
Adding to the seductive qualities of the invitation, Michelle assured respondents that their comments would be delivered to the president–and who could resist that attraction, aside from those who would send him carefully chosen observations that would result in a visit from the Secret Service?
As Mrs. O. so graciously expressed it on her invitation, she and “the girls,” presumably those same girls, Sasha and Malia Obama, whom Barry had repeatedly pledged never to exploit for political purposes, wanted me and, okay, a few others, ”to wish him a happy birthday by signing his card, and sharing why you’re on this journey with us.”
The only “journey” I know Barry and his clan are leading us on is to Hell so I was surprised at Michelle’s offer to allow me to send him my greetings.
The FLOTUS also made specific mention of her hub’s stresses and aging under the pressure of taking the nation down the road to perdition, although she didn’t phrase it exactly that way. What she did say was that the aging process was “more proof that he’s earning every last one of those gray hairs.”
Working 25 hours a day, 8 days a week can do that to a guy and it’s hard to see how Obama does it, in between his golf outings and vacations, but she wouldn’t lie even if she made no reference to the age-enhancing properties of unbleached flour. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5185)
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Nigger Babies, Tar Babies, and Boys
Nigger Babies, Tar Babies, and Boys
I’m almost ashamed to admit it but when we were kids we’d go to the local movie emporium and plop down a quarter–16 cents in sleazier South Bronx theatrical emporia–head for the candy counter, and buy some goodies which today would be considered racist.
I’m almost ashamed not because of my impoverished background which I overcame, thank you very much, but because some of us urchins purchased, along with dry popcorn and a flat soda if we were really flush with nickels, and without the slightest reflection, “nigger babies,” bought and sold under that name at the counter.
They were small, chocolatey, licorice candies the Urban Dictionary describes as “made from a humanoid-shaped mold that gave the treats their baby-like appearance” and goes on to misrepresent the treats.
The Urban Dictionary explains, “Typically sold in bulk for a penny-a-piece, they were renamed ‘Chocolate Babies’ in the 1960s and were eventually sold in a box,” a misleading description because they were being sold in boxes as early as the early fifties.
“Nigger babies” weren’t a big favorite except among licorice aficionados and most fifties kids would never have laid out a precious penny for “nigger babies” in bulk or otherwise even in the sleaziest of movie houses and under the best of circumstances.
In retrospect, they were very inappropriately-named confections even if we only bought them occasionally, the equivalent of vanilla “honky babies” which were never produced as far as I know.
In any event, the N-word has been banished from the English language–except in rap lyrics. The white epithets “honky” and “cracker” are still in wide, contemporary usage, testimony to selective, racial sensitivities which even extend to the innocuous word “niggardly,” an adverb judged abhorrent since it sounds bad.
All this candy reminiscence relates to new, hyperactive sensitivities involving two equally-benign terms in the news lately: “tar babies” and “boy.” Their usage doesn’t quite carry the social stigma of “nigger babies” but they do cause some people to overreact and infer slurs and racial stereotypes where none exist.
“Tar babies” and “boy” may both some day enter the politically incorrect, verboten pantheon along with such literary classics as Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Remus after the PC police succeed in banning them, although banishing the word “boy” and every writing in which it appears would be a monumental challenge.
It comes down to how influential black agitators become. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5176)
I’m almost ashamed to admit it but when we were kids we’d go to the local movie emporium and plop down a quarter–16 cents in sleazier South Bronx theatrical emporia–head for the candy counter, and buy some goodies which today would be considered racist.
I’m almost ashamed not because of my impoverished background which I overcame, thank you very much, but because some of us urchins purchased, along with dry popcorn and a flat soda if we were really flush with nickels, and without the slightest reflection, “nigger babies,” bought and sold under that name at the counter.
They were small, chocolatey, licorice candies the Urban Dictionary describes as “made from a humanoid-shaped mold that gave the treats their baby-like appearance” and goes on to misrepresent the treats.
The Urban Dictionary explains, “Typically sold in bulk for a penny-a-piece, they were renamed ‘Chocolate Babies’ in the 1960s and were eventually sold in a box,” a misleading description because they were being sold in boxes as early as the early fifties.
“Nigger babies” weren’t a big favorite except among licorice aficionados and most fifties kids would never have laid out a precious penny for “nigger babies” in bulk or otherwise even in the sleaziest of movie houses and under the best of circumstances.
In retrospect, they were very inappropriately-named confections even if we only bought them occasionally, the equivalent of vanilla “honky babies” which were never produced as far as I know.
In any event, the N-word has been banished from the English language–except in rap lyrics. The white epithets “honky” and “cracker” are still in wide, contemporary usage, testimony to selective, racial sensitivities which even extend to the innocuous word “niggardly,” an adverb judged abhorrent since it sounds bad.
All this candy reminiscence relates to new, hyperactive sensitivities involving two equally-benign terms in the news lately: “tar babies” and “boy.” Their usage doesn’t quite carry the social stigma of “nigger babies” but they do cause some people to overreact and infer slurs and racial stereotypes where none exist.
“Tar babies” and “boy” may both some day enter the politically incorrect, verboten pantheon along with such literary classics as Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Remus after the PC police succeed in banning them, although banishing the word “boy” and every writing in which it appears would be a monumental challenge.
It comes down to how influential black agitators become. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5176)
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
FOX Tops Opps
FOX Tops Opps
Ok, I freely admit I can't compete with Variety in rhyming or alliterating headlines but nevertheless the stats are in and one mo' time the conservative-leaning Fox News Network, FNC, trounced the leftist-leaning MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal, cable networks in viewership.
That's no surprise since first, "liberal" and "cable" are largely redundant and, second, FOX dominance has been the prevailing trend for years. Nevertheless, the new numbers published on Drudge.com are startling:
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,178,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,196,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,127,000
FOXNEWS SMITH 2,085,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,817,000
MSNBC O’DONNELL 1,138,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 1,026,000
CNN MORGAN 859,000
CNN COOPER 851,000
MSNBC MADDOW 832,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 699,000
CNNHN GRACE 663,000
Some ballpark math: About 11 million people regularly watch Bill, Sean, Scott, Shep and Greta versus 6 million who catch Lawrence, Chris, Piers, Anderson, Rachel, Al, and Nancy.
And few libs thought those dolts, those Neanderthal throwbacks that Obama called in 2008 bitter, frustrated, gun-loving, Bible-thumping, immigrant-hating dummies, even had cable!
It seems the mass of semi-literate, ignoramuses affiliated with the Tea Party and other radical conservative movements, those terrorists, as Joe Biden calls them, actually do have cable connections rather than aluminum, antennaed hats and choose to watch the fair and balanced reporting on FOX with its liberal representation in the persons of Juan Williams, Bob Beckle, Kirsten Powers and others.
They somehow seem turned off by the twisted perspectives of the tingler Matthews and the sacrosanct O'Donnell, the phony Brit Morgan, the gaiety of Cooper and Maddow, the race-baiting of Sharpton, and the vapidness of Grace. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5169)
Ok, I freely admit I can't compete with Variety in rhyming or alliterating headlines but nevertheless the stats are in and one mo' time the conservative-leaning Fox News Network, FNC, trounced the leftist-leaning MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal, cable networks in viewership.
That's no surprise since first, "liberal" and "cable" are largely redundant and, second, FOX dominance has been the prevailing trend for years. Nevertheless, the new numbers published on Drudge.com are startling:
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,178,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,196,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,127,000
FOXNEWS SMITH 2,085,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,817,000
MSNBC O’DONNELL 1,138,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 1,026,000
CNN MORGAN 859,000
CNN COOPER 851,000
MSNBC MADDOW 832,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 699,000
CNNHN GRACE 663,000
Some ballpark math: About 11 million people regularly watch Bill, Sean, Scott, Shep and Greta versus 6 million who catch Lawrence, Chris, Piers, Anderson, Rachel, Al, and Nancy.
And few libs thought those dolts, those Neanderthal throwbacks that Obama called in 2008 bitter, frustrated, gun-loving, Bible-thumping, immigrant-hating dummies, even had cable!
It seems the mass of semi-literate, ignoramuses affiliated with the Tea Party and other radical conservative movements, those terrorists, as Joe Biden calls them, actually do have cable connections rather than aluminum, antennaed hats and choose to watch the fair and balanced reporting on FOX with its liberal representation in the persons of Juan Williams, Bob Beckle, Kirsten Powers and others.
They somehow seem turned off by the twisted perspectives of the tingler Matthews and the sacrosanct O'Donnell, the phony Brit Morgan, the gaiety of Cooper and Maddow, the race-baiting of Sharpton, and the vapidness of Grace. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5169)
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Spider Man Encounters Affirmative Action
Spider Man Encounters Affirmative Action
It shouldn’t come as a big surprise since we already have an affirmative action president but that misguided social policy has now become a really major issue: Marvel Comics has killed off Peter Parker, aka Spider Man, and replaced him with another alliterated superhero, person of color Miles Morales.
The good news for Spidey fans is that Parker only dies in Marvel’s Ultimates series but lives on in its standard series so comic book aficionados can still enjoy his exploits in the latter. The bad news is inherent in the question, Why did Marvel feel it necessary to have the Green Goblin kill poor Parker in any series and supplant him with Morales?
The only rational explanation–if reason is applicable with comic books–is that Parker, who had evolved over the years from a bumbling teenager through various transformations to college kid, teacher, and neurotic freelance adult photographer, suffered from a significant, contemporary liability: He was white.
The Spider Man franchise had prospered from its sketchy 1990 days through 2003 and was the inspiration for a multitude of plays, toys, Tobey McGuire movies, and its ultimate achievement, the disastrous, accident-prone Broadway musical, “Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark.”
In short, Peter Parker was a big moneymaker for Marvel. Why else but a shortage of melanin call him a wrap and turn over his fame to melanin-rich Miles Morales?
CBS inadvertently comments on the ratonale without providing a social context: ”Miles Morales is a half-black, half-Hispanic super-powered teen who gets into the hero game after being inspired by Parker’s death.” Marvel writer Brian Michael Bendis elaborates with a few key observations: “He’s younger than Peter Parker, he’s coming from a completely different background, a completely different world view.”
Hmmm. Younger sells in our youth-oriented culture as do varied backgrounds in our increasingly diverse land and in those ways Miles makes sense. However, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5163)
It shouldn’t come as a big surprise since we already have an affirmative action president but that misguided social policy has now become a really major issue: Marvel Comics has killed off Peter Parker, aka Spider Man, and replaced him with another alliterated superhero, person of color Miles Morales.
The good news for Spidey fans is that Parker only dies in Marvel’s Ultimates series but lives on in its standard series so comic book aficionados can still enjoy his exploits in the latter. The bad news is inherent in the question, Why did Marvel feel it necessary to have the Green Goblin kill poor Parker in any series and supplant him with Morales?
The only rational explanation–if reason is applicable with comic books–is that Parker, who had evolved over the years from a bumbling teenager through various transformations to college kid, teacher, and neurotic freelance adult photographer, suffered from a significant, contemporary liability: He was white.
The Spider Man franchise had prospered from its sketchy 1990 days through 2003 and was the inspiration for a multitude of plays, toys, Tobey McGuire movies, and its ultimate achievement, the disastrous, accident-prone Broadway musical, “Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark.”
In short, Peter Parker was a big moneymaker for Marvel. Why else but a shortage of melanin call him a wrap and turn over his fame to melanin-rich Miles Morales?
CBS inadvertently comments on the ratonale without providing a social context: ”Miles Morales is a half-black, half-Hispanic super-powered teen who gets into the hero game after being inspired by Parker’s death.” Marvel writer Brian Michael Bendis elaborates with a few key observations: “He’s younger than Peter Parker, he’s coming from a completely different background, a completely different world view.”
Hmmm. Younger sells in our youth-oriented culture as do varied backgrounds in our increasingly diverse land and in those ways Miles makes sense. However, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5163)
The GOP Debt Limit Success Charade
The GOP Debt Limit Success Charade
The political dust hadn’t even settled when all the principals were grinning and back-slapping over the snarky, bi-partisan debt suckering of the American people by those same national leaders. Barack Obama was elated, almost tearfully happy he had averted not the imminent default but at avoiding being labeled as The Default President.
Harry Reid was overjoyed, overjoyed for the funereal Harry Reid, at his coup. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell basked in what they erroneously called a Republican victory, of sorts.
Wisely kept out of the negotiating loop, Nancy Pelosi sulked and concurred that the deal was a “Satan sandwich” yet caved and voted to eat that delicacy rather than have to manufacture an original thought. With the triumphal Gabby Giffords in the House and in favor of the bill, Aunt Nancy couldn’t very well vote against her.
Actually, in a great and confused rhetorical leap, Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO) had termed the engineered debt agreement a “sugar coated Satan sandwich,” although it’s difficult for conservatives and anyone else interested in fiscal sanity to taste its sweetness.
Perhaps Cleaver had in mind the Urban Dictionary’s definition of a Satan sandwich as “The chiefest of hell’s dark delights, it is said that just one bite of it arouses an unspeakable lust of terrific potency,” although that’s unlikely since Cleaver is a minister and ministers aren’t supposed to think that way.
Whatever you choose to call the bill raising the nation’s debt limit, to term it a successful agreement would be subverting the meaning of success.
Can it be characterized as a success when the nation’s debt ceiling is raised by as much as $2.4 trillion, the largest increase by far in our history, second only to the 2010 increase of $1.9 trillion, both of which major gradations occurred under the careful watch of President Obama and his accomplished tax cheat Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner?
Can it be characterized a success . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5154)
The political dust hadn’t even settled when all the principals were grinning and back-slapping over the snarky, bi-partisan debt suckering of the American people by those same national leaders. Barack Obama was elated, almost tearfully happy he had averted not the imminent default but at avoiding being labeled as The Default President.
Harry Reid was overjoyed, overjoyed for the funereal Harry Reid, at his coup. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell basked in what they erroneously called a Republican victory, of sorts.
Wisely kept out of the negotiating loop, Nancy Pelosi sulked and concurred that the deal was a “Satan sandwich” yet caved and voted to eat that delicacy rather than have to manufacture an original thought. With the triumphal Gabby Giffords in the House and in favor of the bill, Aunt Nancy couldn’t very well vote against her.
Actually, in a great and confused rhetorical leap, Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO) had termed the engineered debt agreement a “sugar coated Satan sandwich,” although it’s difficult for conservatives and anyone else interested in fiscal sanity to taste its sweetness.
Perhaps Cleaver had in mind the Urban Dictionary’s definition of a Satan sandwich as “The chiefest of hell’s dark delights, it is said that just one bite of it arouses an unspeakable lust of terrific potency,” although that’s unlikely since Cleaver is a minister and ministers aren’t supposed to think that way.
Whatever you choose to call the bill raising the nation’s debt limit, to term it a successful agreement would be subverting the meaning of success.
Can it be characterized as a success when the nation’s debt ceiling is raised by as much as $2.4 trillion, the largest increase by far in our history, second only to the 2010 increase of $1.9 trillion, both of which major gradations occurred under the careful watch of President Obama and his accomplished tax cheat Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner?
Can it be characterized a success . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5154)
Monday, August 1, 2011
Unintended Consequences in the Military and at NASA
Unintended Consequences in the Military and at NASA
When any governmental entity is involved, the line between intended and unintended consequences can be extremely fine, indeed.
Take, for example, the consequences of the repeal of the military’s DADT, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which required homosexuals in the Armed Services not to advertise their sexual inclinations in return for the military’s not inquiring, inquiries which could have resulted in their expulsion.
After extensive study of the deleterious effects outed gays would have on our troops and despite widespread opposition from Marines and combat forces in general, military powers-that-be in the Pentagon–predominantly ambitious officers who wouldn’t want to be perceived as opposing political directives–are set to officially lift the gay ban next month.
If gay agitators get their way, acceptance of homosexuals, turning blind eyes to their proclivities, not “telling” on them will not only become politically passe’ but de rigueur in the services via active recruitment.
The intended consequences being strategized by the LGBT set probaby isn’t exactly what the military intended.
According to the Washington Times, ”An underground gay group in the military wants recruiters to reach out to the gay community in the same way they target blacks, Hispanics and women.” The group, Outserve, representing some 4,000 homosexuals currently serving, is planning what the Times calls a “coming out party” in October in Vegas and wants the military to be on hand.
As one still-closeted Air Force officer put it, “The DoD regularly attends public events to recruit, and we believe they should be at Pride events next year around the country to let the gay community know the opportunities to serve their nation.” As one conservative commentator sees the agitation, it’s all part and parcel of what gay activists do: Push the envelope to the breaking point.
Robert Knight keenly observed, “No one should be surprised at what will be an increasingly shrill set of demands to use the military as an endorsing agency for homosexual activism.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5148)
When any governmental entity is involved, the line between intended and unintended consequences can be extremely fine, indeed.
Take, for example, the consequences of the repeal of the military’s DADT, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which required homosexuals in the Armed Services not to advertise their sexual inclinations in return for the military’s not inquiring, inquiries which could have resulted in their expulsion.
After extensive study of the deleterious effects outed gays would have on our troops and despite widespread opposition from Marines and combat forces in general, military powers-that-be in the Pentagon–predominantly ambitious officers who wouldn’t want to be perceived as opposing political directives–are set to officially lift the gay ban next month.
If gay agitators get their way, acceptance of homosexuals, turning blind eyes to their proclivities, not “telling” on them will not only become politically passe’ but de rigueur in the services via active recruitment.
The intended consequences being strategized by the LGBT set probaby isn’t exactly what the military intended.
According to the Washington Times, ”An underground gay group in the military wants recruiters to reach out to the gay community in the same way they target blacks, Hispanics and women.” The group, Outserve, representing some 4,000 homosexuals currently serving, is planning what the Times calls a “coming out party” in October in Vegas and wants the military to be on hand.
As one still-closeted Air Force officer put it, “The DoD regularly attends public events to recruit, and we believe they should be at Pride events next year around the country to let the gay community know the opportunities to serve their nation.” As one conservative commentator sees the agitation, it’s all part and parcel of what gay activists do: Push the envelope to the breaking point.
Robert Knight keenly observed, “No one should be surprised at what will be an increasingly shrill set of demands to use the military as an endorsing agency for homosexual activism.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5148)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)