The Death of the Girl Scouts
Anyone who has ever been a member of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, a Scout leader, or active supporter of the GSUSA knows the organization has always been one of the finest in the country and the preeminent group advocating for American girls and young women.
Until recently.
Celebrating its 100th anniversary in 2012, the GSUSA boasts a membership of over 2.3 million girls aged 10 to 17. They used to recite the Girl Scout Promise: “On my honor, I will try: To serve God and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout Law.”
Their Promise is similar to the Boy Scout Oath, except in regard to the reference to God which the GSUSA made optional in 1993. That decision followed one two years earlier to adopt a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on sexual orientation. The earlier change was ostensibly made because the organization didn’t want “to intrude on personal matters”; God was dropped because a few people complained.
Both alterations of basic principles were made despite the fact virtually everything in the Girl Scout Law is “personal” and they were made in the interests of demonstrating the GSUSA adheres to the popular fascinations with diversity and inclusiveness.
Those fascinations represented the beginnings of Girl Scout political correctness and may have sounded the death knells of a once proud and honorable institution. The delayed ramifications of the GSUSA going PC were reflected in last month’s dissolution of troops and the recent exposé of Girl Scout attempts at political indoctrination.
As reported by the ChristianPost.com, and by few if any other media, “Three Girl Scout troops at a Christian school in Louisiana have disbanded in protest of a policy of inclusion for transgenders,” more precisely, accepting a biological boy into the Girl Scouts.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Sarah and Bill Tyler, parents of 8 year old Dana/Danann Tyler who indulged their son’s sexual identity confusion by allowing him to dress as a little girl, sent him to school lugging a princess lunch box, and bought him high-heeled slippers, we should all be able to empathize with the Louisiana parents.
Dana/Danann Tyler doesn’t seem to be the subject of the controversy in Lousiana–at last report, the Tylers lived in Southern California–and Christian Post doesn’t give the Louisiana boy’s name. Still, the situations are similar. Dana/Danann’s nationally-televised story was examined here in “Smile! It’s Transgender Awareness Week!”
The push for transgendered boys joining the Girl Scouts isn’t confined to either California or Louisiania. A Colorado mother also tested the GSUSA inclusion policy, was rejected by her local troop, called a press conference, then was heard from no more.
The Louisiana moms/scout leaders didn’t exactly give up, however.
They resigned their posts, disbanded their troops, and are considering re-alignment with an alternative group, American Heritage Girls, which is “dedicated to the mission of building women of integrity through service to God, family, community and country,” commitments now suspect in the GSUSA.
Fifteen year old Sydney Volanski is also commited. She’s committed to outing the GSUSA as a front for the Democrat Party and the progressive movement to undermine Girl Scouts’ integrity and non-partisan, apolitical tradition.
The amazingly-articulate teenager made an appearance on FNC’s “Fox and Friends” Thursday morning and revealed the heretofore unknown and un-publicized GSUSA campaign to seduce scouts into believing all the liberal media claptrap. . .
(Read more and see all sources at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11954.)
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Barack-Hillary in 2012?
Barack-Hillary in 2012?
Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.
In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”
If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.
Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.
Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”
As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)
Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.
In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”
If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.
Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.
Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”
As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Kwanzaa, A Racist Festivus
Kwanzaa, A Racist Festivus
It was a shock, a shock I tell you, to discover that Festivus, the holiday for the rest of us, was not the brainchild of Frank Costanza, George’s father on “Seinfeld.” Close enough, it was the creation of “Seinfeld” screenwriter, Daniel O’Keefe, whose family has celebrated Festivus on December 23rd for 45 years.
As such, the faux holiday pre-dated another phony festival, Kwanzaa. The chief difference between the two is that everyone watching “Seinfeld” knew Festivus was a joke. Kwanzaa is a joke as well but few people are aware it is also a racist-inspired, Marxist creation of an ex-con black revolutionary.
Maulana Ron Karenga, born Ronald McKinley Everett, invented Kwanzaa two years after being released from prison. Along with two others, the cult leader had been convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment for kidnapping and torturing dissident cult members Deborah Jones and Gail Davis.
Ms. Jones testified he had ordered them to strip naked and beat them with an electric cord. Gun in hand, Everett/Karenga supervised as a hot soldering iron and detergent were forced into their mouths and a water hose was turned “full force on their faces.”
The inventor of Kwanzaa and co-founder of Organization Us, (United slaves), a black nationalist group implicated in the 1969 murders of two Black Panthers at UCLA, proudly admitted to being a white-hater influenced by the teachings of fellow ex-con and African-American revolutionary Malcolm X.
He went on to become a prolific author and Chairman of the Department of Africana Studies at the University of California, Long Beach.
Quite the résumé and quite the testimony to the greatness of a country in which a convicted, vicious torturer can rise from the ashes of a career in thuggery and anti-Americanism to the lofty heights of originator of a national holiday, of sorts, and to the prestigious position of departmental chairmanship at a noted university, albeit a California university.
Maulana Ron Karenga-Elliott is quite the man and Kwanzaa is quite a holiday.
Precisely what inspired Karenga-Elliott to institute the first black holiday in 1966 in a nation devoid of any “white holidays” is unclear. However, considering the inventor’s seamy background, Marxist philosophy, and the fact Kwanzaa was hatched at the height of the black power movement, it can reasonably be assumed the inspiration wasn’t love of Caucasians, love of country, or an insatiable desire for peaceful co-existence and integration.
Like Karenga-Elliott, Kwanzaa is a joke, a fake, and a fraud.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11928.)
It was a shock, a shock I tell you, to discover that Festivus, the holiday for the rest of us, was not the brainchild of Frank Costanza, George’s father on “Seinfeld.” Close enough, it was the creation of “Seinfeld” screenwriter, Daniel O’Keefe, whose family has celebrated Festivus on December 23rd for 45 years.
As such, the faux holiday pre-dated another phony festival, Kwanzaa. The chief difference between the two is that everyone watching “Seinfeld” knew Festivus was a joke. Kwanzaa is a joke as well but few people are aware it is also a racist-inspired, Marxist creation of an ex-con black revolutionary.
Maulana Ron Karenga, born Ronald McKinley Everett, invented Kwanzaa two years after being released from prison. Along with two others, the cult leader had been convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment for kidnapping and torturing dissident cult members Deborah Jones and Gail Davis.
Ms. Jones testified he had ordered them to strip naked and beat them with an electric cord. Gun in hand, Everett/Karenga supervised as a hot soldering iron and detergent were forced into their mouths and a water hose was turned “full force on their faces.”
The inventor of Kwanzaa and co-founder of Organization Us, (United slaves), a black nationalist group implicated in the 1969 murders of two Black Panthers at UCLA, proudly admitted to being a white-hater influenced by the teachings of fellow ex-con and African-American revolutionary Malcolm X.
He went on to become a prolific author and Chairman of the Department of Africana Studies at the University of California, Long Beach.
Quite the résumé and quite the testimony to the greatness of a country in which a convicted, vicious torturer can rise from the ashes of a career in thuggery and anti-Americanism to the lofty heights of originator of a national holiday, of sorts, and to the prestigious position of departmental chairmanship at a noted university, albeit a California university.
Maulana Ron Karenga-Elliott is quite the man and Kwanzaa is quite a holiday.
Precisely what inspired Karenga-Elliott to institute the first black holiday in 1966 in a nation devoid of any “white holidays” is unclear. However, considering the inventor’s seamy background, Marxist philosophy, and the fact Kwanzaa was hatched at the height of the black power movement, it can reasonably be assumed the inspiration wasn’t love of Caucasians, love of country, or an insatiable desire for peaceful co-existence and integration.
Like Karenga-Elliott, Kwanzaa is a joke, a fake, and a fraud.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11928.)
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Good News from North Carolina, Alabama, and Ukraine
Good News from North Carolina, Alabama, and Ukraine
“Good news” is a very subjective term.
Some people regard the slight uptick in Barack Hussein Obama’s job approval ratings as a positive, others perceive it as ominous for the next election. Some consider unfortunate Tuesday’s Pentagon announcement that troops returning from Iraq won’t be honored with parades as per custom at the end of a war, others applaud the decision since they don’t like wars or soldiers.
What’s good and what’s bad often depends on one’s perspective.
However, though there are inevitably those who can find dark clouds on bright, sunny days and evil in virtue, various developments over recent weeks must be interpreted as positive–unless you’re a Muslim, a leftist, a misanthrope, or a sorry combination of all three.
For example, few Americans would see an American corporation standing up for American values as a negative. Even fewer would consider a decrease in a state’s unemployment numbers as anything but a sign of improving times. Virtually no one would deny saving children from an ugly fate is an act of true Christian charity.
Earlier this month, the Mooresville, North Carolina-headquartered home improvement chain Lowes home met with widespread criticism for yanking its advertising dollars from TLC’s “All-American Muslim,” apparently feeling the show was not representative of Muslims in America or of Islamic beliefs in Sharia law.
Muslims and leftist Democrat politicians ripped Lowes’ decision as a “shameful” reaction to intolerant “fringe” agitators and organized a boycott of the chain as punishment and to force Lowes to alter its policy.
In a letter to the company, signed by Muslim congressman Keith Ellison and others, the pols accused Lowes of forgetting “what it means to be an American.”
(See “Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims,” http://bit.ly/rZNoTS.)
It seems the company knows full well what being an American means and “All-American Muslim” didn’t fill the bill.
Lowes stuck to its guns and was rewarded with a “BUYcott” by like-minded shoppers who flocked to its stores. At the same time, Lowes proved to be in the advertising vanguard: Fellow advertisers bailed in droves and ratings for TLC’s distorted view of the true nature and character of Muslims plummeted.
One small step for Lowes. One giant leap for America.
Much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, more good news emanated from the very red state of Alabama, employment news that can be credited to the Yellowhammer State and not to Washington.
Late last summer, Alabama began implementation of immigration reforms necessitated by Obamians’ refusal to enforce national immigration law and despite the administration’s efforts to discourage and interfere with Alabama doing the fed job.
Accused of violating everything from civil rights–of illegal aliens–to inflicting untold suffering–on illegal aliens–to ignoring economics in favor of politics, Alabama was following Arizona’s lead by audaciously insisting that applicants for jobs, etc. prove they are legal residents of the country and state.
In addition to the threatened, dire legal consequences of such audacity, progressive pundits and agitators predicted economic catastrophe for Alabamans. To their disappointment, the state has posted employment gains which far surpassed national averages since the new immigration law went into effect.
According to a November 18th report, unemployment rates fell at a record pace in the state, from September’s 9.8% to October’s 9.3%, from 9.9% to 9% in Etowah County, from 8.8% to 8.1% in Marshall county, and from 11.6% to 10.6% in DeKalb county.
The cause of all that good news? That same catastrophic immigration law which made jobs available to citizens and legal aliens who, we have been told by progressives for years, would absolutely never take those jobs.
The State of Alabama isn’t crowing much over outing the feds and the left as fools and liars and telling the president to stick those numbers in his hat, but it should.
Finally, from the usually sparse good news department comes this tidbit from ABCNews.com, a network which is usually engaged in presenting the opposite, and covering for Barack Obama. (Ever see any ABC reference Obama gaffes like “57 states,” “corpsemen,” or Hawaii’s location in Asia?)
Some positive stories cry out for exposure, even on ABC, and the Kecia and Kris Cox’s story is one of them.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11858.)
“Good news” is a very subjective term.
Some people regard the slight uptick in Barack Hussein Obama’s job approval ratings as a positive, others perceive it as ominous for the next election. Some consider unfortunate Tuesday’s Pentagon announcement that troops returning from Iraq won’t be honored with parades as per custom at the end of a war, others applaud the decision since they don’t like wars or soldiers.
What’s good and what’s bad often depends on one’s perspective.
However, though there are inevitably those who can find dark clouds on bright, sunny days and evil in virtue, various developments over recent weeks must be interpreted as positive–unless you’re a Muslim, a leftist, a misanthrope, or a sorry combination of all three.
For example, few Americans would see an American corporation standing up for American values as a negative. Even fewer would consider a decrease in a state’s unemployment numbers as anything but a sign of improving times. Virtually no one would deny saving children from an ugly fate is an act of true Christian charity.
Earlier this month, the Mooresville, North Carolina-headquartered home improvement chain Lowes home met with widespread criticism for yanking its advertising dollars from TLC’s “All-American Muslim,” apparently feeling the show was not representative of Muslims in America or of Islamic beliefs in Sharia law.
Muslims and leftist Democrat politicians ripped Lowes’ decision as a “shameful” reaction to intolerant “fringe” agitators and organized a boycott of the chain as punishment and to force Lowes to alter its policy.
In a letter to the company, signed by Muslim congressman Keith Ellison and others, the pols accused Lowes of forgetting “what it means to be an American.”
(See “Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims,” http://bit.ly/rZNoTS.)
It seems the company knows full well what being an American means and “All-American Muslim” didn’t fill the bill.
Lowes stuck to its guns and was rewarded with a “BUYcott” by like-minded shoppers who flocked to its stores. At the same time, Lowes proved to be in the advertising vanguard: Fellow advertisers bailed in droves and ratings for TLC’s distorted view of the true nature and character of Muslims plummeted.
One small step for Lowes. One giant leap for America.
Much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, more good news emanated from the very red state of Alabama, employment news that can be credited to the Yellowhammer State and not to Washington.
Late last summer, Alabama began implementation of immigration reforms necessitated by Obamians’ refusal to enforce national immigration law and despite the administration’s efforts to discourage and interfere with Alabama doing the fed job.
Accused of violating everything from civil rights–of illegal aliens–to inflicting untold suffering–on illegal aliens–to ignoring economics in favor of politics, Alabama was following Arizona’s lead by audaciously insisting that applicants for jobs, etc. prove they are legal residents of the country and state.
In addition to the threatened, dire legal consequences of such audacity, progressive pundits and agitators predicted economic catastrophe for Alabamans. To their disappointment, the state has posted employment gains which far surpassed national averages since the new immigration law went into effect.
According to a November 18th report, unemployment rates fell at a record pace in the state, from September’s 9.8% to October’s 9.3%, from 9.9% to 9% in Etowah County, from 8.8% to 8.1% in Marshall county, and from 11.6% to 10.6% in DeKalb county.
The cause of all that good news? That same catastrophic immigration law which made jobs available to citizens and legal aliens who, we have been told by progressives for years, would absolutely never take those jobs.
The State of Alabama isn’t crowing much over outing the feds and the left as fools and liars and telling the president to stick those numbers in his hat, but it should.
Finally, from the usually sparse good news department comes this tidbit from ABCNews.com, a network which is usually engaged in presenting the opposite, and covering for Barack Obama. (Ever see any ABC reference Obama gaffes like “57 states,” “corpsemen,” or Hawaii’s location in Asia?)
Some positive stories cry out for exposure, even on ABC, and the Kecia and Kris Cox’s story is one of them.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11858.)
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts. Titled “Unrelenting Global Economic Crisis: A Doomsday View of 2012,” the article makes mincemeat of fools who detected substantial brightness in the world’s and America’s futures.
It should be noted that Petras, a retired professor of sociology, is an ardent socialist, self-described “revolutionary and anti-imperialist,” has been accused of anti-Semitism, and has taken distinctly anti-American positions. All that makes his views suspect but does not necessarily preclude the possibility he is wrong about the future.
Of course, too, one man’s opinion is just that, an opinion, but Petras’ gloomy forecast for the new year and beyond is both chilling and documented. When he writes, “The economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative. The almost universal consensus, even among mainstream orthodox economists is pessimistic regarding the world economy,” the professor doesn’t just predict, he substantiates his predictions.
Petras isn’t merely referring to economic chaos and crises as causes for concern. His prognosis for the world in general is ominously and universally dismal, which is typical for liberals.
Among his prognostications . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts. Titled “Unrelenting Global Economic Crisis: A Doomsday View of 2012,” the article makes mincemeat of fools who detected substantial brightness in the world’s and America’s futures.
It should be noted that Petras, a retired professor of sociology, is an ardent socialist, self-described “revolutionary and anti-imperialist,” has been accused of anti-Semitism, and has taken distinctly anti-American positions. All that makes his views suspect but does not necessarily preclude the possibility he is wrong about the future.
Of course, too, one man’s opinion is just that, an opinion, but Petras’ gloomy forecast for the new year and beyond is both chilling and documented. When he writes, “The economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative. The almost universal consensus, even among mainstream orthodox economists is pessimistic regarding the world economy,” the professor doesn’t just predict, he substantiates his predictions.
Petras isn’t merely referring to economic chaos and crises as causes for concern. His prognosis for the world in general is ominously and universally dismal, which is typical for liberals.
Among his prognostications . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
Monday, December 26, 2011
Kim Jong-il, May He Not Rest in Hell
Kim Jong-il, May He Not Rest in Hell
Normally, it’s proper to show respect for the dead. Kim Jong-il, the bloodthirsty Communist dictator of North Korea is dead and deserved no respect, proper or otherwise.
It’s time, though, to reflect on the passing of the man former Democrat president Jimmy Carter and the United Nations mourned and whose designated heir Carter wished great success.
Apparently born Yuri Irsenovich Kim apparently in Siberia, apparently somewhere Kim decided he wasn’t Siberian and became Kim Jong-il and ruled North Korea in high heels for some 17 years until his apparent death on December 17th or 19th.
Many things are only “apparent” regarding the late despot except his official DPRK titles among which were General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chairman of that country’s National Defense Commission and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army–and unofficial titles of “Dear Leader,” “Generalissimo,” and “Great Father of People.”
My favorite Kim title is ”Biggest Fruitcake on the Asian Stage,” not including Hawaii which President Barack Hussein Obama said recently was in Asia.
Among Kim Jong-il’s accomplishments in the “hermit kingdom” were killing millions of his people, starving millions more, maintaining gulags tenanted by 200,000 political prisoners, and establishing North Korea as the most backward nation on the planet this side of Somalia.
As North Koreans were eating the bark off trees to ward off starvation, Kim found the funds to develop missile and nuclear capacities to threaten his neighbors, another feather in his cap not cited by either Mr. Carter or the U.N.
Granted, former President Jimmy Carter has been struggling with senility demons and a desperate search for a legacy following a failed presidency.
Granted, the United Nations is a boil on the world’s arse controlled by the Third World and struggling to seem relevant and objective.
However, have Carter and the U.N. lost what remained of their collective minds to, in Jimmy’s case, send condolences to North Korea and best wishes for success to his son Kim Jong-un and, in the sorry case of the United Nations, offer up a moment of silence in dad’s honor?
Condolences for what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11613.)
Normally, it’s proper to show respect for the dead. Kim Jong-il, the bloodthirsty Communist dictator of North Korea is dead and deserved no respect, proper or otherwise.
It’s time, though, to reflect on the passing of the man former Democrat president Jimmy Carter and the United Nations mourned and whose designated heir Carter wished great success.
Apparently born Yuri Irsenovich Kim apparently in Siberia, apparently somewhere Kim decided he wasn’t Siberian and became Kim Jong-il and ruled North Korea in high heels for some 17 years until his apparent death on December 17th or 19th.
Many things are only “apparent” regarding the late despot except his official DPRK titles among which were General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chairman of that country’s National Defense Commission and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army–and unofficial titles of “Dear Leader,” “Generalissimo,” and “Great Father of People.”
My favorite Kim title is ”Biggest Fruitcake on the Asian Stage,” not including Hawaii which President Barack Hussein Obama said recently was in Asia.
Among Kim Jong-il’s accomplishments in the “hermit kingdom” were killing millions of his people, starving millions more, maintaining gulags tenanted by 200,000 political prisoners, and establishing North Korea as the most backward nation on the planet this side of Somalia.
As North Koreans were eating the bark off trees to ward off starvation, Kim found the funds to develop missile and nuclear capacities to threaten his neighbors, another feather in his cap not cited by either Mr. Carter or the U.N.
Granted, former President Jimmy Carter has been struggling with senility demons and a desperate search for a legacy following a failed presidency.
Granted, the United Nations is a boil on the world’s arse controlled by the Third World and struggling to seem relevant and objective.
However, have Carter and the U.N. lost what remained of their collective minds to, in Jimmy’s case, send condolences to North Korea and best wishes for success to his son Kim Jong-un and, in the sorry case of the United Nations, offer up a moment of silence in dad’s honor?
Condolences for what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11613.)
Friday, December 23, 2011
The Egomaniacal Obamas
The Egomaniacal Obamas
The latest talk in Washington mostly concerns sizes–the size of tax cuts and Michelle’s posterior even after the president’s bitter half made a startling admission to Barbara Walters on “20/20.”
The FLOTUS hasn’t publicly responded to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner’s ungentlemanly observation that she is a hypocrite for preaching the evils of obesity while sporting significant rear baggage. Admitting her self-absorption is a bigger story, anyway.
In a “20-20″ interview, Barbara Walters suggested Michelle Obama’s statement that she is her own highest priority sounded just a tad selfish. Unfazed, Lady O denied the selfishness while conceding busy women tend to “slip pretty low on our own priority list because we’re so busy caring for everyone else.”
The FLOTUS just thinks it’s “practical” to place herself on top because, well, because, like Stuart Smalley, she thinks she deserves it.
Nothing selfish there. Mrs. Obama is currently busy on vacation in Hawaii working on her top priority.
On the other hand, her hubby has never lost sight of his number one priority: Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s a given that anyone who feels in his or her heart of hearts that he or she is qualified to be president of the United States, leader of the free world, and representative of the interests of the last superpower left on Earth must have an ego the size of Alaska.
Or, a priority list with him or her at the pinnacle.
It’s another given that anyone with little to no experience or credentials who presumes to seek the nomination of a major political party to the office of the American presidency must either be addled or egomaniacal beyond comprehensibility.
Since Barack Hussein Obama often appears to be exceptionally muddled and since he won the presidency principally due to his race and white guilt, he has to be judged the greatest deluded egomaniac ever to sit in the Oval Office. The greatest, overt egomaniac ever to hold the un-elected position as America’s First Lady resides upstairs–when she’s not vacationing on the taxpayers’ dimes.
President Obama has all-too-frequently demonstrated both ineptitude and delusionary perceptions of common realities by his inability to think and function absent scripted teleprompterings. Add to those serious flaws a transparent obliviousness to the ramifications of his domestic and international policies and it becomes obvious he needs a huge ego to counterbalance them.
And he has it.
Twice recently, Obama reinforced the view that he would have been better off continuing his career as a Chicago community organizer and America would be far better off not saddled with his misplaced egotism. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11598.)
The latest talk in Washington mostly concerns sizes–the size of tax cuts and Michelle’s posterior even after the president’s bitter half made a startling admission to Barbara Walters on “20/20.”
The FLOTUS hasn’t publicly responded to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner’s ungentlemanly observation that she is a hypocrite for preaching the evils of obesity while sporting significant rear baggage. Admitting her self-absorption is a bigger story, anyway.
In a “20-20″ interview, Barbara Walters suggested Michelle Obama’s statement that she is her own highest priority sounded just a tad selfish. Unfazed, Lady O denied the selfishness while conceding busy women tend to “slip pretty low on our own priority list because we’re so busy caring for everyone else.”
The FLOTUS just thinks it’s “practical” to place herself on top because, well, because, like Stuart Smalley, she thinks she deserves it.
Nothing selfish there. Mrs. Obama is currently busy on vacation in Hawaii working on her top priority.
On the other hand, her hubby has never lost sight of his number one priority: Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s a given that anyone who feels in his or her heart of hearts that he or she is qualified to be president of the United States, leader of the free world, and representative of the interests of the last superpower left on Earth must have an ego the size of Alaska.
Or, a priority list with him or her at the pinnacle.
It’s another given that anyone with little to no experience or credentials who presumes to seek the nomination of a major political party to the office of the American presidency must either be addled or egomaniacal beyond comprehensibility.
Since Barack Hussein Obama often appears to be exceptionally muddled and since he won the presidency principally due to his race and white guilt, he has to be judged the greatest deluded egomaniac ever to sit in the Oval Office. The greatest, overt egomaniac ever to hold the un-elected position as America’s First Lady resides upstairs–when she’s not vacationing on the taxpayers’ dimes.
President Obama has all-too-frequently demonstrated both ineptitude and delusionary perceptions of common realities by his inability to think and function absent scripted teleprompterings. Add to those serious flaws a transparent obliviousness to the ramifications of his domestic and international policies and it becomes obvious he needs a huge ego to counterbalance them.
And he has it.
Twice recently, Obama reinforced the view that he would have been better off continuing his career as a Chicago community organizer and America would be far better off not saddled with his misplaced egotism. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11598.)
Thursday, December 22, 2011
U.S. and U.N. Join War on Christmas and Christianity
U.S. and U.N. Join War on Christmas and Christianity
It’s long been the feeling that opponents of Christmas festivities and observances were just anti-Christian, anti-traditionalists, anti-everythings, with a fringe that was just plain insane.
Now it seems the lunatics have seized total control in the annual War on Christmas and the inmates are calling the shots.
Things were bad enough when atheists throughout America staged mindless, envious, wars against community Nativity scenes, when naked homosexual Santas pranced through San Francisco, when North Korea threatened war with South Korea over Christmas trees, when the USPS ordered a Bellevue, Washington mailman to stop dressing as Santa Claus, and when Rhode Island Governor Chafee refused to call a Providence Christmas tree a Christmas tree.
Now, the anti-Christmasers have entered the realm of the truly bizarre.
And, no, I’m not referring to the Saugus, Massachusetts school system banning a half-century-old tradition of firefighters visiting elementary schools and distributing coloring books because school Superintendent Richard Langlois felt “there is a conflict between the church and the state in that regard.” Supt. Langlois must have gotten coal in his stocking as a kid or bats in his belfry as an adult.
Nor am I referring to the thousands of drunken Santas who overflowed Manhattan’s South Street Seaport area with beer and urine earlier this month during their annual Santacon pub crawl, a spectacle Santacon organizers promised to clean up next year, assuming the drunken Santas aren’t too inebriated.
And, I’m certainly not alluding to the certified fruitcake Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez who, to his temporal credit, did allow a Caracas Nativity display but to his eternal discredit had himself depicted standing next to it “hugging a child” along with scenes of his “flagship socialist projects."
Allowing for the sources, all those inanities are forgivable. Unforgivable are the actions of the government of the United States and the waste of space on the East River, the United Nations. Both our government and the U.N. are waging active campaigns against both Christmas and Christianity.
As HumanEvents.com reported, thanks to the Barack Hussein Obama administration, bibles are now prohibited at the Walter Reed National Military Center.
That prohibition follows an Air Force Academy apology for Operation Christmas Child, a “Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world” and was preceded by pressures to remove a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes and the cessation of the Air Force’s 20 year old religious curriculum on “just wars.”
When Obamians gets rolling on an anti-Christian tear, they leave no irreverent stone unturned. Of course, Islamic stones are sacrosanct.
When the last, best hope for mankind gets rolling on tradition revisionism, it leaves even Obamians in its dust.
UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11520.)
It’s long been the feeling that opponents of Christmas festivities and observances were just anti-Christian, anti-traditionalists, anti-everythings, with a fringe that was just plain insane.
Now it seems the lunatics have seized total control in the annual War on Christmas and the inmates are calling the shots.
Things were bad enough when atheists throughout America staged mindless, envious, wars against community Nativity scenes, when naked homosexual Santas pranced through San Francisco, when North Korea threatened war with South Korea over Christmas trees, when the USPS ordered a Bellevue, Washington mailman to stop dressing as Santa Claus, and when Rhode Island Governor Chafee refused to call a Providence Christmas tree a Christmas tree.
Now, the anti-Christmasers have entered the realm of the truly bizarre.
And, no, I’m not referring to the Saugus, Massachusetts school system banning a half-century-old tradition of firefighters visiting elementary schools and distributing coloring books because school Superintendent Richard Langlois felt “there is a conflict between the church and the state in that regard.” Supt. Langlois must have gotten coal in his stocking as a kid or bats in his belfry as an adult.
Nor am I referring to the thousands of drunken Santas who overflowed Manhattan’s South Street Seaport area with beer and urine earlier this month during their annual Santacon pub crawl, a spectacle Santacon organizers promised to clean up next year, assuming the drunken Santas aren’t too inebriated.
And, I’m certainly not alluding to the certified fruitcake Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez who, to his temporal credit, did allow a Caracas Nativity display but to his eternal discredit had himself depicted standing next to it “hugging a child” along with scenes of his “flagship socialist projects."
Allowing for the sources, all those inanities are forgivable. Unforgivable are the actions of the government of the United States and the waste of space on the East River, the United Nations. Both our government and the U.N. are waging active campaigns against both Christmas and Christianity.
As HumanEvents.com reported, thanks to the Barack Hussein Obama administration, bibles are now prohibited at the Walter Reed National Military Center.
That prohibition follows an Air Force Academy apology for Operation Christmas Child, a “Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world” and was preceded by pressures to remove a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes and the cessation of the Air Force’s 20 year old religious curriculum on “just wars.”
When Obamians gets rolling on an anti-Christian tear, they leave no irreverent stone unturned. Of course, Islamic stones are sacrosanct.
When the last, best hope for mankind gets rolling on tradition revisionism, it leaves even Obamians in its dust.
UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11520.)
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Jesse Jackson's Combative Incivility
Jesse Jackson's Combative Incivilty
“Teach your children well/ Their father’s hell/ Will slowly go by/ And feed them on your dreams”–of demonstrating, marching, and fighting?
Less than a year ago in the wake of the Tucson shootings by a left wing nutcase, President Barack Hussein Obama lectured Americans on the need for more civility in our society. He spoke of “more civility in our public discourse, . . . because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”
Obama soon forgot the import of his own lecture and, if his minions ever received the message, they buried it along with any remnants of civility they ever had.
His commentariat on MSNBC such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow never gave up being attack dogs, his congressional idolators like Maxine Waters and other members of the Black Caucus never let up with their vile vituperation. and leaders of his unionist armies like the Teamsters’ Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. spoke of going to war with the Tea Party.
In Obama’s presence on Labor Day, Hoffa pledged to his Beloved Leader, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”
The president’s reaction? He grinned and glowed–with the utmost civility, of course–and is currently engaged in his markedly uncivil re-election strategy of pitting Americans against one another in class warfare.
Now, former candidate for the Democrat Party’s nomination for president and avid black activist, Jesse Jackson, has joined the uncivil fray by advising young African-Americans not to bother with trying to succeed and to fight, instead.
More precisely, the Reverend Jackson, who was famously caught on tape in July 2008 offering to neuter Obama, (“I wanna cut his nuts out,”) wants black fathers to teach their kids “how to fight.”
Aside from the fact Jackson often speaks very irreverently for a reverend and black fathers aren’t home long enough to teach much of anything, African-Americans already seem extremely adept at fighting.
During his fight speech, delivered at the London headquarters of “Operation Black Vote,” Jackson addressed a representatative of the “Black Fathers Support Group” and preached that education was secondary to demonstrating, marching, and fighting. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11523.)
“Teach your children well/ Their father’s hell/ Will slowly go by/ And feed them on your dreams”–of demonstrating, marching, and fighting?
Less than a year ago in the wake of the Tucson shootings by a left wing nutcase, President Barack Hussein Obama lectured Americans on the need for more civility in our society. He spoke of “more civility in our public discourse, . . . because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.”
Obama soon forgot the import of his own lecture and, if his minions ever received the message, they buried it along with any remnants of civility they ever had.
His commentariat on MSNBC such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow never gave up being attack dogs, his congressional idolators like Maxine Waters and other members of the Black Caucus never let up with their vile vituperation. and leaders of his unionist armies like the Teamsters’ Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. spoke of going to war with the Tea Party.
In Obama’s presence on Labor Day, Hoffa pledged to his Beloved Leader, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”
The president’s reaction? He grinned and glowed–with the utmost civility, of course–and is currently engaged in his markedly uncivil re-election strategy of pitting Americans against one another in class warfare.
Now, former candidate for the Democrat Party’s nomination for president and avid black activist, Jesse Jackson, has joined the uncivil fray by advising young African-Americans not to bother with trying to succeed and to fight, instead.
More precisely, the Reverend Jackson, who was famously caught on tape in July 2008 offering to neuter Obama, (“I wanna cut his nuts out,”) wants black fathers to teach their kids “how to fight.”
Aside from the fact Jackson often speaks very irreverently for a reverend and black fathers aren’t home long enough to teach much of anything, African-Americans already seem extremely adept at fighting.
During his fight speech, delivered at the London headquarters of “Operation Black Vote,” Jackson addressed a representatative of the “Black Fathers Support Group” and preached that education was secondary to demonstrating, marching, and fighting. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11523.)
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Break-Ups and Splits, One Marital, One Philosophical
Break-ups and Splits, One Marital, One Philosophical
It is with a heavy heart that I report on a recent marital break-up amongst America’s celebrities and with an even heavier heart the dissolution of ties that once bound philosophical allies.
Actually, I’m not experiencing any compassion at all for either the celeb in question, L.A. Laker shooting guard Kobe Bean Bryant or for America’s president since both are getting their just desserts. Bryant’s dessert is especially sweet and Obama’s specially ironic.
Let’s start with the ironic rift which is pertinent to the upcoming election year and which must represent a crushing blow to President Barack Hussein Obama.
The bloom is off the Hugo-Barack rose.
As if he hadn’t noticed before, playing to America’s center-right electorate Obama dared criticize President Hugo Chavez’ dismal human rights record in Venezuela and the dictator’s chumminess with Cuba and Iran. An audacious attack made in a Caracas newspaper, his well-founded criticism proved incendiary and evoked a spirited rejoinder from the South American leader.
With both presidents up for re-election in 2012, Chavez shot back by characterizing his North American counterpart as a “clown,” admonishing his fellow socialist, “Now you want to win votes by attacking Venezuela. Don’t be irresponsible. You are a clown, a clown. Leave us in peace . . . Go after your votes by fulfilling that which you promised your people.”
As if that put-down were not harsh enough, Chavez added, “Focus on governing your country, which you’ve turned into a disaster.”
Of course, for those of us who have closely followed Obama’s meteoric, inexplicable rise to political stardom, the clown reference, the failed promises, and the national disaster comment aren’t revelations but, still, it’s awkward to witness birds of a feather getting so ruffled.
Chavez also threw in, “If I could be a candidate there in the United States, I’d sweep you away.”
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to be trashed by one of your own kind!
In less earth-shaking but more titillating news, accused rapist and notorious man-about-town Kobe Bryant will probably be taken to the financial cleaners by his estranged wife, Vanessa. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11508.)
It is with a heavy heart that I report on a recent marital break-up amongst America’s celebrities and with an even heavier heart the dissolution of ties that once bound philosophical allies.
Actually, I’m not experiencing any compassion at all for either the celeb in question, L.A. Laker shooting guard Kobe Bean Bryant or for America’s president since both are getting their just desserts. Bryant’s dessert is especially sweet and Obama’s specially ironic.
Let’s start with the ironic rift which is pertinent to the upcoming election year and which must represent a crushing blow to President Barack Hussein Obama.
The bloom is off the Hugo-Barack rose.
As if he hadn’t noticed before, playing to America’s center-right electorate Obama dared criticize President Hugo Chavez’ dismal human rights record in Venezuela and the dictator’s chumminess with Cuba and Iran. An audacious attack made in a Caracas newspaper, his well-founded criticism proved incendiary and evoked a spirited rejoinder from the South American leader.
With both presidents up for re-election in 2012, Chavez shot back by characterizing his North American counterpart as a “clown,” admonishing his fellow socialist, “Now you want to win votes by attacking Venezuela. Don’t be irresponsible. You are a clown, a clown. Leave us in peace . . . Go after your votes by fulfilling that which you promised your people.”
As if that put-down were not harsh enough, Chavez added, “Focus on governing your country, which you’ve turned into a disaster.”
Of course, for those of us who have closely followed Obama’s meteoric, inexplicable rise to political stardom, the clown reference, the failed promises, and the national disaster comment aren’t revelations but, still, it’s awkward to witness birds of a feather getting so ruffled.
Chavez also threw in, “If I could be a candidate there in the United States, I’d sweep you away.”
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to be trashed by one of your own kind!
In less earth-shaking but more titillating news, accused rapist and notorious man-about-town Kobe Bryant will probably be taken to the financial cleaners by his estranged wife, Vanessa. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11508.)
The Coming War With China, Part Two
The Coming War With China, Part Two
As antithetical as it is to the Christmas spirit of peace on Earth and good will toward all men, the unfortunate reality is that the grossly cynical view of peace as merely a temporary interruption of war is as true today as it ever was.
As Americans finish up their Christmas shopping and read encouraging, heart-warming stories of troops returning home following the “end” of the Iraqi War, more realistic observers are aware the conflict is far from over and that many of those same soldiers will soon be re-engaging in that and other wars.
Even more ominous in our unstable world are the activities of America’s primary trading partner, lender of hundreds of billions to our treasury, and our unacknowledged adversary, the Peoples Republic of China, the PRC.
Almost two years ago, I posted an opinion piece, “The Coming War With China,” which offered the unoriginal theory that the inscrutable Chinese were preparing for an inevitable clash with the only power that stands in the way of their world dominance, the United States.
Russia continues to make noises and threats asserting its pretensions but, despite Putin’s blustering and new missile development, the time of the Russian Bear passed with the passing of the U.S.S.R. and the best hope the new Russia now has is a military alliance with the PRC when the appropriate time comes for alliances.
And it will.
For years, most military analysts felt China did not pose a realistic threat to America and little chance to re-claim what it considers Chinese territory in Taiwan because of a weak, under-equipped navy, particularly a dearth of aircraft carriers.
That assessment has been changing as rapidly as China’s economic boom has boomed and was recently updated after a commercial American satellite–not the CIA–discovered a Chinese aircraft carrier under way in the Yellow Sea. Almost as secretive as its ally, North Korea, China originally contended the Varyag, purchased from Ukraine ten years ago, would be converted into a floating casino.
Something changed and now the PRC is saying the Varyag ”is intended for research and training, which has led to speculation that it plans to build future copies,” according to a Huffington Post report.
Attempting to save face in the wake of the private satellite photo, our Defense Department expressed no surprise amd suggested the carrier wouldn’t be fully operational for years.
One re-furbished Soviet carrier does not an attack force make . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11496.)
As antithetical as it is to the Christmas spirit of peace on Earth and good will toward all men, the unfortunate reality is that the grossly cynical view of peace as merely a temporary interruption of war is as true today as it ever was.
As Americans finish up their Christmas shopping and read encouraging, heart-warming stories of troops returning home following the “end” of the Iraqi War, more realistic observers are aware the conflict is far from over and that many of those same soldiers will soon be re-engaging in that and other wars.
Even more ominous in our unstable world are the activities of America’s primary trading partner, lender of hundreds of billions to our treasury, and our unacknowledged adversary, the Peoples Republic of China, the PRC.
Almost two years ago, I posted an opinion piece, “The Coming War With China,” which offered the unoriginal theory that the inscrutable Chinese were preparing for an inevitable clash with the only power that stands in the way of their world dominance, the United States.
Russia continues to make noises and threats asserting its pretensions but, despite Putin’s blustering and new missile development, the time of the Russian Bear passed with the passing of the U.S.S.R. and the best hope the new Russia now has is a military alliance with the PRC when the appropriate time comes for alliances.
And it will.
For years, most military analysts felt China did not pose a realistic threat to America and little chance to re-claim what it considers Chinese territory in Taiwan because of a weak, under-equipped navy, particularly a dearth of aircraft carriers.
That assessment has been changing as rapidly as China’s economic boom has boomed and was recently updated after a commercial American satellite–not the CIA–discovered a Chinese aircraft carrier under way in the Yellow Sea. Almost as secretive as its ally, North Korea, China originally contended the Varyag, purchased from Ukraine ten years ago, would be converted into a floating casino.
Something changed and now the PRC is saying the Varyag ”is intended for research and training, which has led to speculation that it plans to build future copies,” according to a Huffington Post report.
Attempting to save face in the wake of the private satellite photo, our Defense Department expressed no surprise amd suggested the carrier wouldn’t be fully operational for years.
One re-furbished Soviet carrier does not an attack force make . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11496.)
Monday, December 19, 2011
A Cynic's Guide to Holiday Dinner Table Topics
A Cynic's Guide to Holiday Dinner Table Topics
Depending on who’s sitting around Americans’ holiday dinner tables, there’s sometimes a certain amount of host and guest indecision as to what topics are appropriate and what are not.
What follows is pure opinion and not predicated on any Emily Post recommendations but simply–some will say simple-minded–practical ideas on what should and should not be discussed while we partake of holiday fare.
Of course, depending on the nature of–and the alcohol content of–beverages served and consumed, oftentimes there are no conversational parameters but for those rare families who don’t know what to talk about, I hereby present a guide for Christmas/Hanukkha/Kwanzaa/Festivus chat.
. FOR THE TWISTED: Planned Parenthood of America offered a topic for the Thanksgiving table which is applicable to all family gatherings. Why not, suggested the busiest abortion-provider in the nation, discuss “reproductive health and justice”?
That’s always an attention-getter as we celebrate, no?
While downplaying the grotesque features of aborting human life, PPOA offers ideas on, among other things, how to “diffuse” debate on “the bigger picture” by avoiding slogans, framing that picture correctly, and offering proper refutations to those who believe abortions are murder.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t much like pictures which depict the truth and treats the subject with a degree of levity, concluding its cheery advice with, “Good luck, and remember, if things get really bad, you can always bring up something everyone can agree on, like how much we all love pumpkin pie.”
Transitioning family debate from abortion to dessert should be a piece of cake, at least in the twisted eyes of abortionists. Is it any wonder normal people want PPOA defunded?
. FOR OCCUPIERS: The Occupy Wall Street and Everything Else anarchists are a fun bunch to discuss over holiday ham or Christmas turkey, especially if a supporter or two is present at the festivities.
Out on the Left Coast in the City by Gomorrah Bay, thousands of Santa wannabes dressed up to do some occupying and marched through downtown San Francisco protesting everything from corporate excesses to bank greed to–this being San Francisco–genital mutilation resulting from male circumcision.
Many shed their costumes and protested in Santa hats and nothing else, reinforcing the opinion of rational adults that OWS, and San Franciscans, have been addled by pot, coke, and un-bridled political correctness.
Wouldn’t little Johnny and little Janey just love to hear the adults chatting about naked Santas as they scarfed down their dinners?
For a graphic, pictorial essay on how Friscans celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and make asses of themselves in the process see “San Francisco Puts the “X” Back in Xmas.”
. FOR DENIERS: Virtually every holiday table features someone who thinks the annual War on Christmas is a fabrication of Fox News so why not start a brouhaha by bringing up the recent case of crazed vandals mindlessly stomping on a Nativity display? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11319.)
Depending on who’s sitting around Americans’ holiday dinner tables, there’s sometimes a certain amount of host and guest indecision as to what topics are appropriate and what are not.
What follows is pure opinion and not predicated on any Emily Post recommendations but simply–some will say simple-minded–practical ideas on what should and should not be discussed while we partake of holiday fare.
Of course, depending on the nature of–and the alcohol content of–beverages served and consumed, oftentimes there are no conversational parameters but for those rare families who don’t know what to talk about, I hereby present a guide for Christmas/Hanukkha/Kwanzaa/Festivus chat.
. FOR THE TWISTED: Planned Parenthood of America offered a topic for the Thanksgiving table which is applicable to all family gatherings. Why not, suggested the busiest abortion-provider in the nation, discuss “reproductive health and justice”?
That’s always an attention-getter as we celebrate, no?
While downplaying the grotesque features of aborting human life, PPOA offers ideas on, among other things, how to “diffuse” debate on “the bigger picture” by avoiding slogans, framing that picture correctly, and offering proper refutations to those who believe abortions are murder.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t much like pictures which depict the truth and treats the subject with a degree of levity, concluding its cheery advice with, “Good luck, and remember, if things get really bad, you can always bring up something everyone can agree on, like how much we all love pumpkin pie.”
Transitioning family debate from abortion to dessert should be a piece of cake, at least in the twisted eyes of abortionists. Is it any wonder normal people want PPOA defunded?
. FOR OCCUPIERS: The Occupy Wall Street and Everything Else anarchists are a fun bunch to discuss over holiday ham or Christmas turkey, especially if a supporter or two is present at the festivities.
Out on the Left Coast in the City by Gomorrah Bay, thousands of Santa wannabes dressed up to do some occupying and marched through downtown San Francisco protesting everything from corporate excesses to bank greed to–this being San Francisco–genital mutilation resulting from male circumcision.
Many shed their costumes and protested in Santa hats and nothing else, reinforcing the opinion of rational adults that OWS, and San Franciscans, have been addled by pot, coke, and un-bridled political correctness.
Wouldn’t little Johnny and little Janey just love to hear the adults chatting about naked Santas as they scarfed down their dinners?
For a graphic, pictorial essay on how Friscans celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and make asses of themselves in the process see “San Francisco Puts the “X” Back in Xmas.”
. FOR DENIERS: Virtually every holiday table features someone who thinks the annual War on Christmas is a fabrication of Fox News so why not start a brouhaha by bringing up the recent case of crazed vandals mindlessly stomping on a Nativity display? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11319.)
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims
Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims
What’s wrong with American Muslims?
Nothing, according to Muslims and Democrat politicians who are incensed over Lowes pulling its ads from The Learning Channel’s new reality show, “All American Muslim.” Something, according to Lowes which makes money when people buy stuff at their home improvement stores but which felt advertising on”All American Muslim” was counterproductive to its interests.
There are also the questions as to what constitutes worthwhile “learning” and Muslim realities.
Lowes’ apt corporate motto is “Never Stop Improving” and this week it joined some 75 other advertisers in bailing on sponsoring the show. Some people, including those Democrat pols, attribute Lowes’ action to caving to prejudiced, conservative special interest groups, others including the travel website, Kayak.com, to the fact “the show sucked.”
In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never seen an “All-American Muslim.” However, from what I’ve researched, it does suck and even more relevantly, the Muslims depicted are far from representative of American Muslims. TLC’s offering seems more an exercise in propagandistic political correctness than a serious effort at informational entertainment.
There’s a major difference between infotainment and infoganda.
Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress who staged a 24 hour hunger strike in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Sreet anarchists, also protested against Lowes saying, “Corporate America needs to take a stand against these anti-Muslim fringe groups and stand up for what is right because this is what it means to be an American.”
Joining Ellison in his righteous indignation were Detroit-area Democrats, the first Bangladeshi-American congressman, Hansen Hashim Clarke, John Dingell, and Gary Peters who expressed dismay over the Florida Family Association’s dismay over ”All-American Muslim.”
The good congressmen dutifully dispatched a letter to Lowes defending Muslims and their contributions to the nation, without delineating those contributions. They concluded their missive by saying, ”We implore you to reconsider your decision and live up to your corporate ideals of diversity and inclusion and the values of tolerance and acceptance that create the foundation of our nation.”
Anymore than Ellison explained how an American corporation refusing to advertise on a television show it felt distorted reality related in any way to “what it means to be an American,” the other congressmen failed to clarify how supporting intolerance is a building block of America’s foundation.
That aside, Ellison’s comment regarding alleged “Muslim anti-fringe groups” and “what it means to be an American” bears more scrutiny.
The Florida Family Association which organized a wildly-successful petition against TLC’s ”All-American Muslim” is a quarter century old organization dedicated to the betterment of life in America. Its mission statement, to “Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” is hardly a “fringe” sentiment.
Toward that end, the FFA has campaigned against what it deems offensive television shows advocating aberrant lifestyles, smutty fare for children, pornography–as well as Islamic propaganda. The FFA is urging Florida Gov. Rick Scott to order an investigation into whether a Muslim woman’s death was due to suicide or to an all-too-common Islamic “honor killing.” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11016.)
What’s wrong with American Muslims?
Nothing, according to Muslims and Democrat politicians who are incensed over Lowes pulling its ads from The Learning Channel’s new reality show, “All American Muslim.” Something, according to Lowes which makes money when people buy stuff at their home improvement stores but which felt advertising on”All American Muslim” was counterproductive to its interests.
There are also the questions as to what constitutes worthwhile “learning” and Muslim realities.
Lowes’ apt corporate motto is “Never Stop Improving” and this week it joined some 75 other advertisers in bailing on sponsoring the show. Some people, including those Democrat pols, attribute Lowes’ action to caving to prejudiced, conservative special interest groups, others including the travel website, Kayak.com, to the fact “the show sucked.”
In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never seen an “All-American Muslim.” However, from what I’ve researched, it does suck and even more relevantly, the Muslims depicted are far from representative of American Muslims. TLC’s offering seems more an exercise in propagandistic political correctness than a serious effort at informational entertainment.
There’s a major difference between infotainment and infoganda.
Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress who staged a 24 hour hunger strike in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Sreet anarchists, also protested against Lowes saying, “Corporate America needs to take a stand against these anti-Muslim fringe groups and stand up for what is right because this is what it means to be an American.”
Joining Ellison in his righteous indignation were Detroit-area Democrats, the first Bangladeshi-American congressman, Hansen Hashim Clarke, John Dingell, and Gary Peters who expressed dismay over the Florida Family Association’s dismay over ”All-American Muslim.”
The good congressmen dutifully dispatched a letter to Lowes defending Muslims and their contributions to the nation, without delineating those contributions. They concluded their missive by saying, ”We implore you to reconsider your decision and live up to your corporate ideals of diversity and inclusion and the values of tolerance and acceptance that create the foundation of our nation.”
Anymore than Ellison explained how an American corporation refusing to advertise on a television show it felt distorted reality related in any way to “what it means to be an American,” the other congressmen failed to clarify how supporting intolerance is a building block of America’s foundation.
That aside, Ellison’s comment regarding alleged “Muslim anti-fringe groups” and “what it means to be an American” bears more scrutiny.
The Florida Family Association which organized a wildly-successful petition against TLC’s ”All-American Muslim” is a quarter century old organization dedicated to the betterment of life in America. Its mission statement, to “Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” is hardly a “fringe” sentiment.
Toward that end, the FFA has campaigned against what it deems offensive television shows advocating aberrant lifestyles, smutty fare for children, pornography–as well as Islamic propaganda. The FFA is urging Florida Gov. Rick Scott to order an investigation into whether a Muslim woman’s death was due to suicide or to an all-too-common Islamic “honor killing.” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11016.)
Friday, December 16, 2011
Two Small Christmas Miracles
Two Small Christmas Miracles
Every once in a great while, the public education community slips up and forgets its NEA-dictated politically correct liberalism.
It happened last year at a Long Island middle school awards ceremony when a soldier just back from Iraq was honored by allowing him to present a good citizenship citation to a student.
After being introduced and before he was able to make the presentation, the soldier was showered with appreciation by the 800-strong audience. They leapt to their collective feet to offer their own award for his service, a standing ovation that went on for minutes.
Teachers and school administrators in the district, which will not be identified to protect the innocent, were belatedly embarrassed into joining in.
Well, it happened again, this time at a concert–not a Christmas concert, of course, but rather a “winter concert”–at a high school in the same district where not only were America’s armed forces honored but Chistmas melodies, including religious-themed hymns, were performed and met with comparable approbation.
When the National Education Association gets wind of that combined patriotic/religious rebellion, heads will surely roll.
In the greater scheme of political correctness, neither the military tribute nor the celebration of Christmas were earth-shaking yet both represented a radical departure from the PC norm in the Long Island neck of the national woods. They furnished irrefutable proof that there is some hope for sanity in Democrat Lawn Guyland.
After the band director asked veterans and active duty members of the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force to stand at the appropriate moment, the Symphonic Band offered selections from the fight songs of all four branches of America’s military.
Unprompted, the audience enthusiastically applauded both the servicemen and women and “Anchors Aweigh,” “The Caisons Go Rolling Along,” “The Marines Hymn,” and “The U.S. Air Force.”
Pacifists in the audience must have been cringing.
The Festival Chorus then sang a rendition of Vince Guaraldi’s “Christmas Time Is Here,” a cheery song about sleigh bells and snow flakes which could pass muster even with atheistic grinches. The festival choristers went overboard when they followed that innocuous holiday ditty with the gospel song, “Every Time I Feel the Spirit.”
Whatever was the chorus director thinking when he allowed public school kids to sing, “Ev’ry time I feel the spirit moving in my heart, I will pray. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10912.)
Every once in a great while, the public education community slips up and forgets its NEA-dictated politically correct liberalism.
It happened last year at a Long Island middle school awards ceremony when a soldier just back from Iraq was honored by allowing him to present a good citizenship citation to a student.
After being introduced and before he was able to make the presentation, the soldier was showered with appreciation by the 800-strong audience. They leapt to their collective feet to offer their own award for his service, a standing ovation that went on for minutes.
Teachers and school administrators in the district, which will not be identified to protect the innocent, were belatedly embarrassed into joining in.
Well, it happened again, this time at a concert–not a Christmas concert, of course, but rather a “winter concert”–at a high school in the same district where not only were America’s armed forces honored but Chistmas melodies, including religious-themed hymns, were performed and met with comparable approbation.
When the National Education Association gets wind of that combined patriotic/religious rebellion, heads will surely roll.
In the greater scheme of political correctness, neither the military tribute nor the celebration of Christmas were earth-shaking yet both represented a radical departure from the PC norm in the Long Island neck of the national woods. They furnished irrefutable proof that there is some hope for sanity in Democrat Lawn Guyland.
After the band director asked veterans and active duty members of the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force to stand at the appropriate moment, the Symphonic Band offered selections from the fight songs of all four branches of America’s military.
Unprompted, the audience enthusiastically applauded both the servicemen and women and “Anchors Aweigh,” “The Caisons Go Rolling Along,” “The Marines Hymn,” and “The U.S. Air Force.”
Pacifists in the audience must have been cringing.
The Festival Chorus then sang a rendition of Vince Guaraldi’s “Christmas Time Is Here,” a cheery song about sleigh bells and snow flakes which could pass muster even with atheistic grinches. The festival choristers went overboard when they followed that innocuous holiday ditty with the gospel song, “Every Time I Feel the Spirit.”
Whatever was the chorus director thinking when he allowed public school kids to sing, “Ev’ry time I feel the spirit moving in my heart, I will pray. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10912.)
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tim Tebow, Broncos' Quarterback, not God's
Tim Tebow, Broncos' Quarterback, not God's
At the risk of taking issue with the Wall Street Journal’s Patton Dodd, I don’t think Denver Bronco’s Tim Tebow is “God’s Quarterback.” I don’t even know if God follows the NFL or if He cares much about football. I do know, however, that Tebow is a religious lightning rod and that much of the criticism surrounding him reflects more on his critics than on Tebow.
Dodd does provide a litany of the quarterback’s altruistic activities both at the University of Florida where he “re-shaped campus culture” and since he joined the Broncos as well as testimonials to his model behavior. Spending his summers working with the poor in the Phillipines and raising $340,000 for charity while a Gator were prefatory to establishing a charitable family foundation.
Dodd also notes a marked contrast between Tebow and the significant number of star athletes who have recently used their stardom, and wealth, to engage in criminal and anti-social–dare I say immoral?–conduct. Among others, he cites Tiger Woods, Plaxico Buress, and Michael Vick.
Neither his admirable qualities nor contrasts with less admirable athletes qualify Tebow qualify Tebow as a saint or God’s designated quarterback. Neither should they disqualify him from objective recognition of his accomplishments.
Tim Tebow is no Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning–not yet, anyway–but he has caused an unprecedented uproar in the sports world that has surpassed few previous uproars, and little of it relates to his athletic abilities.
True, his wobbly passes and unconventional proclivity to run the ball have drawn valid criticism from NFL opponents and sports writers who ostensibly ridicule only his wobblies and unconventionality. However, it’s really the God thing, Tebow’s public affirmations of his relgiosity, that seems to bug many in the wide world of sports.
This Sunday’s game with Tom Brady’s New England Patriots is being characterized as Tebow’s biggest challenge to date, with both the Broncos and the Patriots desperate for a victory and Tebow, not desparate after leading the Broncos to seven wins in the eight games he’s started, but entitled.
Tim Tebow is entitled to some respect in addition to recognition.
Whether or not Tebow pulls off another amazing comeback victory and takes his team to the playoffs, it’s doubtful he’ll get it. He just has too many liabilities. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10775.)
At the risk of taking issue with the Wall Street Journal’s Patton Dodd, I don’t think Denver Bronco’s Tim Tebow is “God’s Quarterback.” I don’t even know if God follows the NFL or if He cares much about football. I do know, however, that Tebow is a religious lightning rod and that much of the criticism surrounding him reflects more on his critics than on Tebow.
Dodd does provide a litany of the quarterback’s altruistic activities both at the University of Florida where he “re-shaped campus culture” and since he joined the Broncos as well as testimonials to his model behavior. Spending his summers working with the poor in the Phillipines and raising $340,000 for charity while a Gator were prefatory to establishing a charitable family foundation.
Dodd also notes a marked contrast between Tebow and the significant number of star athletes who have recently used their stardom, and wealth, to engage in criminal and anti-social–dare I say immoral?–conduct. Among others, he cites Tiger Woods, Plaxico Buress, and Michael Vick.
Neither his admirable qualities nor contrasts with less admirable athletes qualify Tebow qualify Tebow as a saint or God’s designated quarterback. Neither should they disqualify him from objective recognition of his accomplishments.
Tim Tebow is no Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana, or Peyton Manning–not yet, anyway–but he has caused an unprecedented uproar in the sports world that has surpassed few previous uproars, and little of it relates to his athletic abilities.
True, his wobbly passes and unconventional proclivity to run the ball have drawn valid criticism from NFL opponents and sports writers who ostensibly ridicule only his wobblies and unconventionality. However, it’s really the God thing, Tebow’s public affirmations of his relgiosity, that seems to bug many in the wide world of sports.
This Sunday’s game with Tom Brady’s New England Patriots is being characterized as Tebow’s biggest challenge to date, with both the Broncos and the Patriots desperate for a victory and Tebow, not desparate after leading the Broncos to seven wins in the eight games he’s started, but entitled.
Tim Tebow is entitled to some respect in addition to recognition.
Whether or not Tebow pulls off another amazing comeback victory and takes his team to the playoffs, it’s doubtful he’ll get it. He just has too many liabilities. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10775.)
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Obamacare Rationing Has Arrived: Live, or Die, with It
Obamacare Rationing Has Arrived: Live, or Die, with It
It isn’t being called rationing since the president repeatedly pledged that would never happen under Obamacare but, pledge as they might, the Obamians are already busily engaged in restricting Americans’ access to medical testing and treatment, aka rationing.
And, don’t dare even whisper the term “death panels.” Sarah Palin and others were widely ridiculed by the administration for suggesting their existence since, we were promised, Obamacare would never incorporate such a ghastly feature. Instead, they’re called ”ethics panels.”
Years before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, measures are being taken nationwide to cut costs and limit access to medical procedures which for decades were considered prudent and necessary for diagnosis and treatment of potentially life-threatening illnesses and diseases.
It’s the old trick of boiling a frog adapted to medicine.
Those interested in boiling frogs know you should never throw the little amphibians into pots of boiling water since they tend to jump out and spoil the fun. Likewise, politicians know they can’t literally throw grannie under a bus, pull the plug on gramp’s respirator, or assign a cancer patient to a death panel since grannie, gramps, and the cancer patient are liable to kick them where it hurts.
You have to boil them gradually and use euphemisms as you do it.
Rationing began in earnest earlier this year when the FDA withdrew approval of Genentech’s highly-effective but expensive breast cancer drug Avastin on the basis that it had ”a marginal effect on tumor growth in breast cancer and in light of Avastin’s severe side effects, the risks outweigh the limited benefit.”
The FDA didn’t directly address that opinion to the thousands of women whose lives have been extended by that “limited benefit” and who scoff at the alleged side effects and risks.
Life, for frogs and human beings, supersedes both the pleasures of boiling water and side effects despite cost savings.
As for mammograms, women only think they should get them annually but that’s another misconception according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, USPTF, which seems to have been assembled by the Department of Health and Human Services less for the purpose of preventing than for rationing.
The task force of 16 “independent experts” concluded in November, 2009 that it makes no sense for women to either perform breast self-exams or get routine mammograms before reaching the age of 50. Possibly saving your life is purposeless, and it costs money.
After the flak hit the fan and women adopted the frog approach to boiling water, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius backtracked and insisted the “experts” were merely recommending, not establishing policy or determining coverage–and Republicans were absolute cads for suggesting otherwise.
Chalk one up for the women-folk.
Again only recommending, in October, 2011, the same task force reported that “Prostate-specific antigen–based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer–specific mortality” despite findings by true independent studies showing such screenings reduce death rates by up to 90%.
Following that money-saving recommendation, the nation’s largest urology group jumped all over the USPTF . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10765.)
It isn’t being called rationing since the president repeatedly pledged that would never happen under Obamacare but, pledge as they might, the Obamians are already busily engaged in restricting Americans’ access to medical testing and treatment, aka rationing.
And, don’t dare even whisper the term “death panels.” Sarah Palin and others were widely ridiculed by the administration for suggesting their existence since, we were promised, Obamacare would never incorporate such a ghastly feature. Instead, they’re called ”ethics panels.”
Years before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, measures are being taken nationwide to cut costs and limit access to medical procedures which for decades were considered prudent and necessary for diagnosis and treatment of potentially life-threatening illnesses and diseases.
It’s the old trick of boiling a frog adapted to medicine.
Those interested in boiling frogs know you should never throw the little amphibians into pots of boiling water since they tend to jump out and spoil the fun. Likewise, politicians know they can’t literally throw grannie under a bus, pull the plug on gramp’s respirator, or assign a cancer patient to a death panel since grannie, gramps, and the cancer patient are liable to kick them where it hurts.
You have to boil them gradually and use euphemisms as you do it.
Rationing began in earnest earlier this year when the FDA withdrew approval of Genentech’s highly-effective but expensive breast cancer drug Avastin on the basis that it had ”a marginal effect on tumor growth in breast cancer and in light of Avastin’s severe side effects, the risks outweigh the limited benefit.”
The FDA didn’t directly address that opinion to the thousands of women whose lives have been extended by that “limited benefit” and who scoff at the alleged side effects and risks.
Life, for frogs and human beings, supersedes both the pleasures of boiling water and side effects despite cost savings.
As for mammograms, women only think they should get them annually but that’s another misconception according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, USPTF, which seems to have been assembled by the Department of Health and Human Services less for the purpose of preventing than for rationing.
The task force of 16 “independent experts” concluded in November, 2009 that it makes no sense for women to either perform breast self-exams or get routine mammograms before reaching the age of 50. Possibly saving your life is purposeless, and it costs money.
After the flak hit the fan and women adopted the frog approach to boiling water, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebellius backtracked and insisted the “experts” were merely recommending, not establishing policy or determining coverage–and Republicans were absolute cads for suggesting otherwise.
Chalk one up for the women-folk.
Again only recommending, in October, 2011, the same task force reported that “Prostate-specific antigen–based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer–specific mortality” despite findings by true independent studies showing such screenings reduce death rates by up to 90%.
Following that money-saving recommendation, the nation’s largest urology group jumped all over the USPTF . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10765.)
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Iran and America's Drones
If it hadn’t before, the Islamic Republic of Iran now completely understands what makes America’s drones tick, both the hapless drone sitting in the White House and our surveillance drone sitting somewhere in Iranian territory.
At this juncture, Iran probably understands President Barack Hussein Obama better than it understands our top secret spy plane although, given enough time, they, China, and other American enemies will learn plenty about the Lockheed RQ-170 Sentinel Stealth Drone.
On Tuesday, Democrat congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA) criticized the president as arrogant and alienating, as a man who would be better off teaching somewhere than serving as chief executive, a charge that is only partially true. He is, indeed, arrogant and alienating but only on the partisan, domestic front. Internationally, he functions much like the RQ-170 is functioning now.
As for Obama being better off doing something, anything else, that’s true. The country would also be better off.
A week ago, the Sentinel inexplicably went down somewhere in Iran while on a surveillance mission over Iran.
Chockful of stealth technology, capable of flying at 50,000 feet, and costing $6 million dollars each, the remotely-operated drone apparently malfunctioned and was not shot down by the Iranian airforce as Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alleges but at this point little of that matters.
Obama wants it returned. It’s not known whether he stamped his foot when he said so. Various options for recovering or destroying the aircraft were presented to him. He chose to grovel and beg, instead. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10741.)
If it hadn’t before, the Islamic Republic of Iran now completely understands what makes America’s drones tick, both the hapless drone sitting in the White House and our surveillance drone sitting somewhere in Iranian territory.
At this juncture, Iran probably understands President Barack Hussein Obama better than it understands our top secret spy plane although, given enough time, they, China, and other American enemies will learn plenty about the Lockheed RQ-170 Sentinel Stealth Drone.
On Tuesday, Democrat congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA) criticized the president as arrogant and alienating, as a man who would be better off teaching somewhere than serving as chief executive, a charge that is only partially true. He is, indeed, arrogant and alienating but only on the partisan, domestic front. Internationally, he functions much like the RQ-170 is functioning now.
As for Obama being better off doing something, anything else, that’s true. The country would also be better off.
A week ago, the Sentinel inexplicably went down somewhere in Iran while on a surveillance mission over Iran.
Chockful of stealth technology, capable of flying at 50,000 feet, and costing $6 million dollars each, the remotely-operated drone apparently malfunctioned and was not shot down by the Iranian airforce as Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alleges but at this point little of that matters.
Obama wants it returned. It’s not known whether he stamped his foot when he said so. Various options for recovering or destroying the aircraft were presented to him. He chose to grovel and beg, instead. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10741.)
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Atheist War on Christmas and Christians Goes Asian
The Atheist War on Christmas and Christians Goes Asian
Just when it looked as if the annual War on Christmas was showing signs the good guys were winning, the other side pops up and does something stupidly outrageous to demonstrate how stupid and outrageous they are.
Admittedly, the positive signs that Christians were winning were minimal in the first place but when the head of the Catholic Defense League, Bill Donohue, sees room for optimism there has to be some hope. Then there’s the unfortunate reality that, hope or not, the War on Christmas is still raging across the land–and across the Pacific Ocean.
Invariably, the forces of darkness are led by nihilistic atheists, domestic and foreign, dedicated to little else but negativism.
Personally, I don’t care if someone is an atheist and worships old socks, pink gerbils, or the almighty dollar instead of the Almighty. However, in a nation in which 96% of the population celebrates Christmas, actively campaigning against December 25th as either a holiday or a holy day is an intolerable, un-American annoyance.
It’s also an infringement on the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion and free speech.
Out on the Left Coast, a 57 year old Christmas tradition is being attacked by the usual horde of atheists employing an unusually subtle yet still pernicious tactic, gobbling up most of alloted public spaces to celebrate the winter solstice instead of Christmas.
For those fifty seven years, a group of churches in Santa Monica has traditionally erected 14 life-size displays depicting a variety of Nativity. This year, they are reduced to two, the other spaces alloted to out of town atheists who have filled two “solstice greetings” spots ranting against religion while monopolizing a total of 18.
In government courts, that should be considered an illegal restraint of religion and of a national holiday.
Hunter Jameson, a spokesperson for the churches, contends what the atheists are doing smacks of collusion and “that these new applicants have been working together to displace and push out the Nativity scenes from the park, rather than erecting a full display of their own.” (http://tiny.cc/0s9uj)
There’s no smacking involved at all. It’s just another battle in the American atheist War on Christmas.
Reflecting the truism that wars tend to widen, battles in that war have now spread to the Korean Peninsula.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), where people are so poor and desperate they are known to eat the bark off trees, the atheistic, Communist leaders have taken great umbrage over their slaves viewing Christmas trees in the prosperous and actually democratic Republic of Korea (ROK). . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10565.)
Just when it looked as if the annual War on Christmas was showing signs the good guys were winning, the other side pops up and does something stupidly outrageous to demonstrate how stupid and outrageous they are.
Admittedly, the positive signs that Christians were winning were minimal in the first place but when the head of the Catholic Defense League, Bill Donohue, sees room for optimism there has to be some hope. Then there’s the unfortunate reality that, hope or not, the War on Christmas is still raging across the land–and across the Pacific Ocean.
Invariably, the forces of darkness are led by nihilistic atheists, domestic and foreign, dedicated to little else but negativism.
Personally, I don’t care if someone is an atheist and worships old socks, pink gerbils, or the almighty dollar instead of the Almighty. However, in a nation in which 96% of the population celebrates Christmas, actively campaigning against December 25th as either a holiday or a holy day is an intolerable, un-American annoyance.
It’s also an infringement on the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion and free speech.
Out on the Left Coast, a 57 year old Christmas tradition is being attacked by the usual horde of atheists employing an unusually subtle yet still pernicious tactic, gobbling up most of alloted public spaces to celebrate the winter solstice instead of Christmas.
For those fifty seven years, a group of churches in Santa Monica has traditionally erected 14 life-size displays depicting a variety of Nativity. This year, they are reduced to two, the other spaces alloted to out of town atheists who have filled two “solstice greetings” spots ranting against religion while monopolizing a total of 18.
In government courts, that should be considered an illegal restraint of religion and of a national holiday.
Hunter Jameson, a spokesperson for the churches, contends what the atheists are doing smacks of collusion and “that these new applicants have been working together to displace and push out the Nativity scenes from the park, rather than erecting a full display of their own.” (http://tiny.cc/0s9uj)
There’s no smacking involved at all. It’s just another battle in the American atheist War on Christmas.
Reflecting the truism that wars tend to widen, battles in that war have now spread to the Korean Peninsula.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), where people are so poor and desperate they are known to eat the bark off trees, the atheistic, Communist leaders have taken great umbrage over their slaves viewing Christmas trees in the prosperous and actually democratic Republic of Korea (ROK). . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10565.)
The Radicalism of Barack Hussein Obama
The Radicalism of Barack Hussein Obama
When Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama, ”Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the candidate responded with an off-the-cuff answer that rivaled his most infamous gaffes before or since.
It’s not that his response was the equivalent of his “57 states” or his “corpseman” goofs. In fact, it couldn’t be classified as a stupid gaffe at all. It was more a slip of the lip, an unrehearsed confession of his extremist socioeconomic philosophy which would have buried most candidates.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama answered and added, ”I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Wealth re-distribution and class warfare in which the proletariat, the vast laboring majority, rebels against the bourgeosie, the small minority in control of the means of production, are central to Marxist theory. If that idea rings a bell, it’s because it is also central to the mini-revolution now plaguing the country, the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it’s not coincidental that the president fully supports OWS.
Of course, the claim by demonstrators that they represent the so-called 99% is simplistic since half of that number happen to be part owners of the means of America’s means of production by virtue of being investors in stocks, 401k and 403b plans, and other investment vehicles.
Logic is no more a feature of OWS than it is of Marxism today.
In The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Dinesh D’Souza dismisses the belief that Marxism-socialism is Obama’s principal inspiration and contends it is an anti-colonialist rage, a commitment to leveling the world’s playing field by ending America’s status of a superpower that motivates Obama.
D’Souza rightly feels that Obama inherited both his Marxism-socialism and anti-colonialism views from his father but there is little point in differentiating which is primary to the president’s thinking. Extended another four years, either is sufficient to ending the America as we know it today.
A realization that Obama was and is a radical extremist is more critical for the election of 2012. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10482.)
When Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama, ”Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the candidate responded with an off-the-cuff answer that rivaled his most infamous gaffes before or since.
It’s not that his response was the equivalent of his “57 states” or his “corpseman” goofs. In fact, it couldn’t be classified as a stupid gaffe at all. It was more a slip of the lip, an unrehearsed confession of his extremist socioeconomic philosophy which would have buried most candidates.
“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama answered and added, ”I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Wealth re-distribution and class warfare in which the proletariat, the vast laboring majority, rebels against the bourgeosie, the small minority in control of the means of production, are central to Marxist theory. If that idea rings a bell, it’s because it is also central to the mini-revolution now plaguing the country, the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it’s not coincidental that the president fully supports OWS.
Of course, the claim by demonstrators that they represent the so-called 99% is simplistic since half of that number happen to be part owners of the means of America’s means of production by virtue of being investors in stocks, 401k and 403b plans, and other investment vehicles.
Logic is no more a feature of OWS than it is of Marxism today.
In The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Dinesh D’Souza dismisses the belief that Marxism-socialism is Obama’s principal inspiration and contends it is an anti-colonialist rage, a commitment to leveling the world’s playing field by ending America’s status of a superpower that motivates Obama.
D’Souza rightly feels that Obama inherited both his Marxism-socialism and anti-colonialism views from his father but there is little point in differentiating which is primary to the president’s thinking. Extended another four years, either is sufficient to ending the America as we know it today.
A realization that Obama was and is a radical extremist is more critical for the election of 2012. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10482.)
Saturday, December 10, 2011
The U.N. in Action: Global Warming, Global Fleecing, Global Revamping
The U.N. in Action: Global Warming, Global Fleecing, Global Revamping
As of this writing, Reuters is reporting a tentative accord, not an amicable accord and still tentative, at the gathering of rich and poor nations at the U.N. climate conference in Durban, S.A.
In essence, the evil rich–including the United States and the emerging rich China and India– beat back the deserving poor–including 43 island nations, which have no reasonable excuse for existing as nations, and the rest of the envious planet. Another serious issue had been the U.S. contention that prodigious polluters China and India should be required to play by the same emission rules as we do. (http://tiny.cc/ibe0k)
As usual with the United Nations, nothing was accomplished even after the Durban confab ran two days overtime as representatives from pretend nations like Comoros and Vanuatu sought to do anything to avoid returning to Comoros and Vanuatu.
The significance of Durban is not its failure but in the immediate and long-term climate and geopolitical goals of the United Nations, none of which favor the United States.
When it comes to the global warming/climate change charade, the United Nations has long abided by the tried and true axiom that nothing beats a good defense better than a good offense. If the U.N. excels at nothing else, and it doesn’t, it is superb at absorbing attacks and damaging truths by ignoring them as if they didn’t exist and braving on with even more outrageous scams.
In the wake of the second expose’ within two years that revealed the lies behind man-made global warming/climate change, instead of backtracking and conceding the facts, the U.N. went on the offensive by drafting a treaty at Durban to further milk the Western world by requiring us to compensate the rest of the planet for our rudeness toward “the rights of Mother Earth.”
Conferring at the U.N. climate summit, United Nations’ one-worlders conceived a new guilt trip, “climate debt,” designed to suck more money from the “have nations” to fill the pockets of “have-nots,” after being funneled through the rapacious maw of the monstrosity on the East River.
Just as the U.N. carried on after Climategate One in 2009 as if it had never happened, it was unfazed by Climategate Two.
As a refresher, in 2009, so-called scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-funded East Anglia University Climate Research Unit were caught with their warming pants down.
Pseudo-scientists of IPCC, the same group that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 for their efforts to terrify the world, were discovered not merely fudging climate data but lying and covering up findings which contradicted their pre-conceived, PC notions of anthropogenic causes of global warming.
Hackers broke into computers at the CRU and released 61 megabytes of 72 confidential documents and 1079 secret emails to the public, emails that irrefutably substantiated climatological fakery.
As the London Telegraph reported at the time, the purloined documents exposed “conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more:” http://bit.ly/InbR7.
Thievery is reprehensible. Global fraud is far worse.
Undismayed by CRU Director Phil Jones’ admission that the data “appear to be genuine,” the following month the U.N. went ahead with its scheduled Copenhagen Climate Summit, which achieve nothing.
Truth will usually, eventually, out and last month U.N. perfidy was outed once again when 5000 new IPCC emails were hacked confirming what Climategate One had originally proven, that man-made global warming is the biggest fraud since Copernicus was shown to be wrong in the sixteenth century. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10419.)
As of this writing, Reuters is reporting a tentative accord, not an amicable accord and still tentative, at the gathering of rich and poor nations at the U.N. climate conference in Durban, S.A.
In essence, the evil rich–including the United States and the emerging rich China and India– beat back the deserving poor–including 43 island nations, which have no reasonable excuse for existing as nations, and the rest of the envious planet. Another serious issue had been the U.S. contention that prodigious polluters China and India should be required to play by the same emission rules as we do. (http://tiny.cc/ibe0k)
As usual with the United Nations, nothing was accomplished even after the Durban confab ran two days overtime as representatives from pretend nations like Comoros and Vanuatu sought to do anything to avoid returning to Comoros and Vanuatu.
The significance of Durban is not its failure but in the immediate and long-term climate and geopolitical goals of the United Nations, none of which favor the United States.
When it comes to the global warming/climate change charade, the United Nations has long abided by the tried and true axiom that nothing beats a good defense better than a good offense. If the U.N. excels at nothing else, and it doesn’t, it is superb at absorbing attacks and damaging truths by ignoring them as if they didn’t exist and braving on with even more outrageous scams.
In the wake of the second expose’ within two years that revealed the lies behind man-made global warming/climate change, instead of backtracking and conceding the facts, the U.N. went on the offensive by drafting a treaty at Durban to further milk the Western world by requiring us to compensate the rest of the planet for our rudeness toward “the rights of Mother Earth.”
Conferring at the U.N. climate summit, United Nations’ one-worlders conceived a new guilt trip, “climate debt,” designed to suck more money from the “have nations” to fill the pockets of “have-nots,” after being funneled through the rapacious maw of the monstrosity on the East River.
Just as the U.N. carried on after Climategate One in 2009 as if it had never happened, it was unfazed by Climategate Two.
As a refresher, in 2009, so-called scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-funded East Anglia University Climate Research Unit were caught with their warming pants down.
Pseudo-scientists of IPCC, the same group that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 for their efforts to terrify the world, were discovered not merely fudging climate data but lying and covering up findings which contradicted their pre-conceived, PC notions of anthropogenic causes of global warming.
Hackers broke into computers at the CRU and released 61 megabytes of 72 confidential documents and 1079 secret emails to the public, emails that irrefutably substantiated climatological fakery.
As the London Telegraph reported at the time, the purloined documents exposed “conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more:” http://bit.ly/InbR7.
Thievery is reprehensible. Global fraud is far worse.
Undismayed by CRU Director Phil Jones’ admission that the data “appear to be genuine,” the following month the U.N. went ahead with its scheduled Copenhagen Climate Summit, which achieve nothing.
Truth will usually, eventually, out and last month U.N. perfidy was outed once again when 5000 new IPCC emails were hacked confirming what Climategate One had originally proven, that man-made global warming is the biggest fraud since Copernicus was shown to be wrong in the sixteenth century. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10419.)
It's a Wonderful Life, Despite Rich Cohen
It's a Wonderful Life, Despite Rich Cohen
It’s ”really the most terrifying Hollywood film ever made, a tale of hunger, greed and a troubled America.”
Only a misanthropic, jaded contributor to Salon.com, or to one of that website’s twisted sister sites, could interpret Frank Capra’s classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life” in such a fashion as columnist Rich Cohen does.
Sadly, some people get up every morning in America and spend a good part of their day, if not their entire day, not in giving thanks for having been born in and for having prospered in our great land but in thinking up ways to denigrate “their” country, to undermine its values and traditions, or to simply poke holes in good things.
While conferring needlessly gratuitous compliments upon the late renouned director Frank Capra as “an Italian immigrant who . . . lived through the Depression, then through the rise of terrible ideologies,” Cohen concludes that Capra ”knew how bad things could get. He knew, too, that the United States was not immune and this knowledge spiked his love with the worst kind of fear. The result was that special melancholy, blue shot through with black, that runs through his films, the best of which are parables that operate on various levels, some of which were probably unknown to Capra himself.”
The supremely arrogant Cohen knows what that ignorant Italian immigrant couldn’t possibly grasp: In Cohen’s warped view, Capra’s philosophy and films were attributable to the fact that he “loved America [but only] because America saved him.” Capra had no appreciation of his adopted country, no patriotism, no innate sense of rectitude and morality, just a debt of gratitude to America.
To Cohen, the protagonist of “IAWL”, George Bailey, isn’t really saved at all. As Cohen writes at the end of his trash piece, Bailey was living in tawdry Pottersville all along and never did live in wholesome Bedford Falls and Cohen admits he relates to the Pottersville tawdriness.
That’s why, to the omniscient Cohen, in the last scene, “George looks at his friends with terror. He’s happy to be alive, but he’s disillusioned, wised up in just the worst way. He finally knows the world as it really is, what his friends are capable of, the dark potential coiled in each of them . . . It’s the sort of vision that makes a person go insane. . . "
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10438.)
It’s ”really the most terrifying Hollywood film ever made, a tale of hunger, greed and a troubled America.”
Only a misanthropic, jaded contributor to Salon.com, or to one of that website’s twisted sister sites, could interpret Frank Capra’s classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life” in such a fashion as columnist Rich Cohen does.
Sadly, some people get up every morning in America and spend a good part of their day, if not their entire day, not in giving thanks for having been born in and for having prospered in our great land but in thinking up ways to denigrate “their” country, to undermine its values and traditions, or to simply poke holes in good things.
While conferring needlessly gratuitous compliments upon the late renouned director Frank Capra as “an Italian immigrant who . . . lived through the Depression, then through the rise of terrible ideologies,” Cohen concludes that Capra ”knew how bad things could get. He knew, too, that the United States was not immune and this knowledge spiked his love with the worst kind of fear. The result was that special melancholy, blue shot through with black, that runs through his films, the best of which are parables that operate on various levels, some of which were probably unknown to Capra himself.”
The supremely arrogant Cohen knows what that ignorant Italian immigrant couldn’t possibly grasp: In Cohen’s warped view, Capra’s philosophy and films were attributable to the fact that he “loved America [but only] because America saved him.” Capra had no appreciation of his adopted country, no patriotism, no innate sense of rectitude and morality, just a debt of gratitude to America.
To Cohen, the protagonist of “IAWL”, George Bailey, isn’t really saved at all. As Cohen writes at the end of his trash piece, Bailey was living in tawdry Pottersville all along and never did live in wholesome Bedford Falls and Cohen admits he relates to the Pottersville tawdriness.
That’s why, to the omniscient Cohen, in the last scene, “George looks at his friends with terror. He’s happy to be alive, but he’s disillusioned, wised up in just the worst way. He finally knows the world as it really is, what his friends are capable of, the dark potential coiled in each of them . . . It’s the sort of vision that makes a person go insane. . . "
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10438.)
The Complex Catholicity of Newt Gingrich
The Complex Catholicity of Newt Gingrich
As outlined in “It’s Gingrich Time!” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629), the Obamian attack machine, led in Congress by its High Priestess of Vacuity and Obama idolatress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has begun to mobilize against Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The carefully-designed Democrat deconstruction of the latest front-runner in the Republican sweepstakes for the nomination had Pelosi hinting at a ton of allegedly unethical dirt she was prepared to dump on Gingrich, a threatened dumping that made no mention of her own alleged ethical breaches nor of the slew of Obama administration unethical and questionably legal machinations.
Rep. Pelosi withdrew the threat the same day she made it.
As I concluded in “It’s Gringich Time!” “The worst is yet to come in the Destroy Gingrich Campaign.” This will be a long and dirty political year and one of the most reprehensible Dem tactics is already becoming apparent: Tar Newt as a religious hypocrite, a newly-baptized papist fanatic, or both.
The ploy’s success is totally dependent on how well Democrats can get away with smearing Gingrich without smearing his new religion and his new wife lest they be seen as trampling on the First Amendment and the feminine gender. They usually have to be sly about it as in the case of the NewYork Times shortly after his 2009 conversion to Catholicism.
In “Gingrich Gets (a New) Religion,” the Times commented, “But even before his conversion, Mr. Gingrich was branded a hypocrite in the blogosphere after he wrote in a recent Twitter post that President Obama had ‘anti-Catholic values’ ” after he criticized the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame.
Do note: The blogosphere, not the Times, called Gingrich a hypocrite. Still, the lambasting had begun and mostly relates to his marriages.
In “Newt Gingrich’s Religion,” Salon.com is less subtle, delineating the differences between the religion Newt had left and the one he had adopted, pointing out the basic tenets of the Baptist faith and that, ”With Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, he has, in effect, publicly renounced them.”
Salon not only snidely attacks Gingrich but takes digs at his wife, citing why Newt converted and casting aspersions on Callista Bisek with snide references to her immorality: “The first reason he mentions is the fact that his current wife, Callista, is a devout Catholic.”
Then Salon goes for the real dirt: ”Not so devout, however, that she minded carrying on an affair with the married Speaker of the House. The affair lasted for at least five years while Gingrich was married to his second wife.”
As we all know, ultra-moral liberals take great umbrage at such things, especially when liberals are not involved.
Sounding more envious than chagrined, Salon also threw in another shocker: “Not that it really matters, but Gingrich is 23 years older than Callista. When their affair began, she was in her late 20’s, Gingrich in his 50’s.”
If it didn’t matter, why mention it–other than to paint Mrs. Gingrich as a bimbo and her husband as an aging, hypocritical roue’?
Bill Clinton married once, Ronald Reagan twice, Newt Gingrich thrice.
By all indications, Clinton’s marriage has been something other than one made in heaven, Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman ended amicably and his second to Nancy Davis was the stuff of marital legend. Gingrich’s first two weddings have been mischaracterized by the media as something akin to marriages by Jack the Ripper to his victims.
Newt’s third marriage, which has lasted eleven years, is the one that most sticks in the MSM craw.
Gingrich lately seems more than a bit happy, content, and at peace with himself and his philosophy, none of which sits well with the mainstreamers who distrust him because his father was career military and because they’re still peeved over 1994.
The stickiest issue is that Ms. Bisek is a Roman Catholic and now so is Newt and we all know how sinister those Catholics are, right? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9752.)
As outlined in “It’s Gingrich Time!” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629), the Obamian attack machine, led in Congress by its High Priestess of Vacuity and Obama idolatress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has begun to mobilize against Newton Leroy Gingrich.
The carefully-designed Democrat deconstruction of the latest front-runner in the Republican sweepstakes for the nomination had Pelosi hinting at a ton of allegedly unethical dirt she was prepared to dump on Gingrich, a threatened dumping that made no mention of her own alleged ethical breaches nor of the slew of Obama administration unethical and questionably legal machinations.
Rep. Pelosi withdrew the threat the same day she made it.
As I concluded in “It’s Gringich Time!” “The worst is yet to come in the Destroy Gingrich Campaign.” This will be a long and dirty political year and one of the most reprehensible Dem tactics is already becoming apparent: Tar Newt as a religious hypocrite, a newly-baptized papist fanatic, or both.
The ploy’s success is totally dependent on how well Democrats can get away with smearing Gingrich without smearing his new religion and his new wife lest they be seen as trampling on the First Amendment and the feminine gender. They usually have to be sly about it as in the case of the NewYork Times shortly after his 2009 conversion to Catholicism.
In “Gingrich Gets (a New) Religion,” the Times commented, “But even before his conversion, Mr. Gingrich was branded a hypocrite in the blogosphere after he wrote in a recent Twitter post that President Obama had ‘anti-Catholic values’ ” after he criticized the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame.
Do note: The blogosphere, not the Times, called Gingrich a hypocrite. Still, the lambasting had begun and mostly relates to his marriages.
In “Newt Gingrich’s Religion,” Salon.com is less subtle, delineating the differences between the religion Newt had left and the one he had adopted, pointing out the basic tenets of the Baptist faith and that, ”With Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, he has, in effect, publicly renounced them.”
Salon not only snidely attacks Gingrich but takes digs at his wife, citing why Newt converted and casting aspersions on Callista Bisek with snide references to her immorality: “The first reason he mentions is the fact that his current wife, Callista, is a devout Catholic.”
Then Salon goes for the real dirt: ”Not so devout, however, that she minded carrying on an affair with the married Speaker of the House. The affair lasted for at least five years while Gingrich was married to his second wife.”
As we all know, ultra-moral liberals take great umbrage at such things, especially when liberals are not involved.
Sounding more envious than chagrined, Salon also threw in another shocker: “Not that it really matters, but Gingrich is 23 years older than Callista. When their affair began, she was in her late 20’s, Gingrich in his 50’s.”
If it didn’t matter, why mention it–other than to paint Mrs. Gingrich as a bimbo and her husband as an aging, hypocritical roue’?
Bill Clinton married once, Ronald Reagan twice, Newt Gingrich thrice.
By all indications, Clinton’s marriage has been something other than one made in heaven, Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman ended amicably and his second to Nancy Davis was the stuff of marital legend. Gingrich’s first two weddings have been mischaracterized by the media as something akin to marriages by Jack the Ripper to his victims.
Newt’s third marriage, which has lasted eleven years, is the one that most sticks in the MSM craw.
Gingrich lately seems more than a bit happy, content, and at peace with himself and his philosophy, none of which sits well with the mainstreamers who distrust him because his father was career military and because they’re still peeved over 1994.
The stickiest issue is that Ms. Bisek is a Roman Catholic and now so is Newt and we all know how sinister those Catholics are, right? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9752.)
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Mumia Abu-Jamal Beats the Racist System
Mumia Abu-Jamal Beats the Racist System
The wheels of justice just fell off–again.
In a tribute to the farce that is America’s justice system, former Black Panther Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal has been awarded a reprieve and won’t be executed for murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9th, 1981.
Life has been good to Abu-Jamal, not so good for his victim and his family.
It’s not as if there weren’t any eyewitnesses to Abu-Jamal shooting Faulkner point blank in the face. Two testified he confessed in the hospital by saying, “I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies.”
It’s not as if there was no forensic evidence. His .38 caliber revolver and five shell casings consistent with bullets removed from the police officer’s body was found next to Abu-Jamal at the scene of the crime.
It’s not as if Abu-Jamal wasn’t found guilty and sentenced or that he didn’t exhaust the appeals process. His state and federal appeals failed to overturn the verdict.
It’s not as if he didn’t receive a fair trial. He and his brother refused to testify but the evidence was so clear-cut that the jury needed only three hours to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.
It’s not as if the current Philly District Attorney now believes he could be innocent. Seth Williams, the city’s first black DA, said, “There’s never been any doubt in my mind that Mumia Abu-Jamal shot and killed Officer Faulkner. I believe that the appropriate sentence was handed down by a jury of his peers in 1982.”
The fifty-eight year old Abu-Jamal, born Wesley Cook before his conversion to the Black Panthers, will live out his remaining years in prison because he beat the system.
DA Williams is giving up attempting to have him executed as decreed by a number of courts and judges because Abu-Jamal has gained so much notoriety and garnered so many influential supporters that Williams believes “Another penalty proceeding would open the case to the repetition of the state appeals process and an unknowable number of years of federal review again, even if we were successful. . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10204.)
The wheels of justice just fell off–again.
In a tribute to the farce that is America’s justice system, former Black Panther Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal has been awarded a reprieve and won’t be executed for murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on December 9th, 1981.
Life has been good to Abu-Jamal, not so good for his victim and his family.
It’s not as if there weren’t any eyewitnesses to Abu-Jamal shooting Faulkner point blank in the face. Two testified he confessed in the hospital by saying, “I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies.”
It’s not as if there was no forensic evidence. His .38 caliber revolver and five shell casings consistent with bullets removed from the police officer’s body was found next to Abu-Jamal at the scene of the crime.
It’s not as if Abu-Jamal wasn’t found guilty and sentenced or that he didn’t exhaust the appeals process. His state and federal appeals failed to overturn the verdict.
It’s not as if he didn’t receive a fair trial. He and his brother refused to testify but the evidence was so clear-cut that the jury needed only three hours to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.
It’s not as if the current Philly District Attorney now believes he could be innocent. Seth Williams, the city’s first black DA, said, “There’s never been any doubt in my mind that Mumia Abu-Jamal shot and killed Officer Faulkner. I believe that the appropriate sentence was handed down by a jury of his peers in 1982.”
The fifty-eight year old Abu-Jamal, born Wesley Cook before his conversion to the Black Panthers, will live out his remaining years in prison because he beat the system.
DA Williams is giving up attempting to have him executed as decreed by a number of courts and judges because Abu-Jamal has gained so much notoriety and garnered so many influential supporters that Williams believes “Another penalty proceeding would open the case to the repetition of the state appeals process and an unknowable number of years of federal review again, even if we were successful. . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10204.)
Soldiers, from Battlefields, to Landfills, to Non-entities
Soldiers, from Battlefields, to Landfills, to Non-entities
The term “soldiers” once technically only applied to men serving in an army, a definition expanded in modern times to include both men and women and which loosely describes anyone serving in the military, although Marines, Navy personnel, airmen and Coastguardsmen might take umbrage with being called soldiers.
Whatever the interpretation of “soldiers,” generic or otherwise, they are the people who make possible our freedom to dispute nomenclature and they protect our country. As trite as it sounds today, they are the people who enable us to be free.
Yet, many of those same people have been treated like medical waste and the deaths of others have been trivialized.
Seventy years ago, soldiers were idealized and idolized as brave patriots defending their country. Forty years ago at the height of the Viet Nam war, being a soldier meant risking life and limb fighting for their country then came home and were spat on by protestors claiming they were baby killers. Thirty years ago, America elected a commander in chief who once admitted to loathing the military.
Today, we are witnessing the culmination of that spitting and loathing: The ashes of the remains of courageous men and women who died in battle have been dumped in a landfill and the deadliest attack on a U.S. military base in history is being dismissed as “workplace violence.”
The Air Force was faced with a dilemma starting as early as 1996: What to do with the bodies of dead soldiers returned to Dover Air Base, remains which they had been authorized to dispose of in an appropriately dignified, respectful manner. Their version of dignified and respectful involved secret cremation and dumping in landfills.
The practice, abandoned in 2008, was hidden from the Pentagon but not before the ashes and body fragments of as many as 2,036 dead soldiers were dumped, 274 of which the Air Force forgot about until pushed to do an accounting.
However, the Air Force and Pentagon had an excuse for not knowing precisely how many remains were dumped.
According to the Washington Post, that determination “would require searching through the records of more than 6,300 troops whose remains have passed through the [Dover AFB] mortuary since 2001.”
We certainly can’t expect the Pentagon and Air Force to expend all that time, effort, and money simply to provide a bare modicum of dignified respect for our fallen soldiers, now can we?
Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan showed an even less dignified respect for the military and human life when he slaughtered . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9412.)
The term “soldiers” once technically only applied to men serving in an army, a definition expanded in modern times to include both men and women and which loosely describes anyone serving in the military, although Marines, Navy personnel, airmen and Coastguardsmen might take umbrage with being called soldiers.
Whatever the interpretation of “soldiers,” generic or otherwise, they are the people who make possible our freedom to dispute nomenclature and they protect our country. As trite as it sounds today, they are the people who enable us to be free.
Yet, many of those same people have been treated like medical waste and the deaths of others have been trivialized.
Seventy years ago, soldiers were idealized and idolized as brave patriots defending their country. Forty years ago at the height of the Viet Nam war, being a soldier meant risking life and limb fighting for their country then came home and were spat on by protestors claiming they were baby killers. Thirty years ago, America elected a commander in chief who once admitted to loathing the military.
Today, we are witnessing the culmination of that spitting and loathing: The ashes of the remains of courageous men and women who died in battle have been dumped in a landfill and the deadliest attack on a U.S. military base in history is being dismissed as “workplace violence.”
The Air Force was faced with a dilemma starting as early as 1996: What to do with the bodies of dead soldiers returned to Dover Air Base, remains which they had been authorized to dispose of in an appropriately dignified, respectful manner. Their version of dignified and respectful involved secret cremation and dumping in landfills.
The practice, abandoned in 2008, was hidden from the Pentagon but not before the ashes and body fragments of as many as 2,036 dead soldiers were dumped, 274 of which the Air Force forgot about until pushed to do an accounting.
However, the Air Force and Pentagon had an excuse for not knowing precisely how many remains were dumped.
According to the Washington Post, that determination “would require searching through the records of more than 6,300 troops whose remains have passed through the [Dover AFB] mortuary since 2001.”
We certainly can’t expect the Pentagon and Air Force to expend all that time, effort, and money simply to provide a bare modicum of dignified respect for our fallen soldiers, now can we?
Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan showed an even less dignified respect for the military and human life when he slaughtered . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9412.)
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
"A Date Which Will Live in Infamy"
"A Date Which Will Live in Infamy"
Exactly seventy years ago, on the morning of December 7th, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched the most devastating attack ever witnessed on American soil.
Deploying some 353 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes launched from 6 aircraft carriers offshore Pearl Harbor, the sneak attack claimed the lives of 2,402 civilians and military personnel, wounded 1,282, sank or damaged 16 American warships, destroyed 188 U.S. aircraft and marked the beginning of our involvement in World War Two.
The “infamy” to which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt referred the next day during his address to a joint session of Congress is generally interpreted to have meant the attack itself and it was beyond infamous. However, as we learned much later, a lack of preparedness, horrendous mistakes, and possible duplicity on FDR’s part were also contributory factors in America’s losses.
Similar factors played a role sixty years later when Islamic maniacs crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a vacant field in rural Pennsylvania.
If America had learned anything from the 1941 attack, we had forgotten what we learned by September 11th, 2001. If we learned anything from 2001, we have forgotten that as well. Despite security pretenses, the United States is as vulnerable to Muslim fanatics in 2011 as we were ten years ago.
We can play self-satisfying security games and wring our hands all we want, we can strip-search old ladies at airports, and we can fight wars with no strategy for winning but there is only one certain route to defeating an enemy, implementing a resolve for total victory, a resolve we sorely lack.
As a result, America will surely sustain other December 7ths, other September 11ths, perhaps more deadly than those attacks.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor Day and may God grant us the wisdom to avoid its repetition.
Exactly seventy years ago, on the morning of December 7th, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched the most devastating attack ever witnessed on American soil.
Deploying some 353 fighters, bombers, and torpedo planes launched from 6 aircraft carriers offshore Pearl Harbor, the sneak attack claimed the lives of 2,402 civilians and military personnel, wounded 1,282, sank or damaged 16 American warships, destroyed 188 U.S. aircraft and marked the beginning of our involvement in World War Two.
The “infamy” to which President Franklin Delano Roosevelt referred the next day during his address to a joint session of Congress is generally interpreted to have meant the attack itself and it was beyond infamous. However, as we learned much later, a lack of preparedness, horrendous mistakes, and possible duplicity on FDR’s part were also contributory factors in America’s losses.
Similar factors played a role sixty years later when Islamic maniacs crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a vacant field in rural Pennsylvania.
If America had learned anything from the 1941 attack, we had forgotten what we learned by September 11th, 2001. If we learned anything from 2001, we have forgotten that as well. Despite security pretenses, the United States is as vulnerable to Muslim fanatics in 2011 as we were ten years ago.
We can play self-satisfying security games and wring our hands all we want, we can strip-search old ladies at airports, and we can fight wars with no strategy for winning but there is only one certain route to defeating an enemy, implementing a resolve for total victory, a resolve we sorely lack.
As a result, America will surely sustain other December 7ths, other September 11ths, perhaps more deadly than those attacks.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor Day and may God grant us the wisdom to avoid its repetition.
IOTW News You Won't See in the MSM
IOTW News You Won't See in the MSM
President Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media’s stranglehold on news it decrees as newsworthy, i.e. news that meshes with the leftist political agenda, is the stuff of contemporary legend. Following the lead of the former “paper of record,” the New York Times, the MSM prints and broadcasts only news that fits.
It remains then for non-mainstream outlets to pick up the slack and disseminate to the public information the MSM censors and buries in liberal socio-political interests.
To be sure, sometimes stories become so public thanks to those rebel outlets that the MSM is compelled to cover them, albeit with a leftist twist if they can get away with it.
Two momentous, and salacious, cases in recent memory which the mainstreamers attempted desperately to conceal, one of which almost brought down a Democrat presidency, another which exposed a Dem darling as a lying adulterer, proved to be major embarrassments to the MSM not because of their smarminess but because they knew about them and failed to report them.
It took the upstart, Matt Drudge, to out the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky outrages and the tabloid rag, the National Enquirer, to reveal the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair.
Of course, as always and with a little help from their political friends, the MSM recovered from its abdication of journalistic integrity.
A distinctly unfriendly website, unfriendly to the Left, IOwntheWorld.com, regularly publishes stories and items of interest that even Drudge.com avoids, reports in the news which the MSM wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot keyboard.
Irreverent, iconoclastic, occasionally bawdy, IOTW provides an alternative to Drudge’s wannabe mainstream pretensions and to other websites that filter the news, as well as reporting known truths with an honest spin.
IOTW also puts the lie to the widely-held misconception that conservatives are conservative in everything, but that’s a whole different perspective that can best be understood by visiting IowntheWorld.com.
A sampling of IOTW reports:
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9906.)
President Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media’s stranglehold on news it decrees as newsworthy, i.e. news that meshes with the leftist political agenda, is the stuff of contemporary legend. Following the lead of the former “paper of record,” the New York Times, the MSM prints and broadcasts only news that fits.
It remains then for non-mainstream outlets to pick up the slack and disseminate to the public information the MSM censors and buries in liberal socio-political interests.
To be sure, sometimes stories become so public thanks to those rebel outlets that the MSM is compelled to cover them, albeit with a leftist twist if they can get away with it.
Two momentous, and salacious, cases in recent memory which the mainstreamers attempted desperately to conceal, one of which almost brought down a Democrat presidency, another which exposed a Dem darling as a lying adulterer, proved to be major embarrassments to the MSM not because of their smarminess but because they knew about them and failed to report them.
It took the upstart, Matt Drudge, to out the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky outrages and the tabloid rag, the National Enquirer, to reveal the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair.
Of course, as always and with a little help from their political friends, the MSM recovered from its abdication of journalistic integrity.
A distinctly unfriendly website, unfriendly to the Left, IOwntheWorld.com, regularly publishes stories and items of interest that even Drudge.com avoids, reports in the news which the MSM wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot keyboard.
Irreverent, iconoclastic, occasionally bawdy, IOTW provides an alternative to Drudge’s wannabe mainstream pretensions and to other websites that filter the news, as well as reporting known truths with an honest spin.
IOTW also puts the lie to the widely-held misconception that conservatives are conservative in everything, but that’s a whole different perspective that can best be understood by visiting IowntheWorld.com.
A sampling of IOTW reports:
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9906.)
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Panem Without the Circenses: Food Stamps
Panem Without the Cicenses: Food Stamps
Before the collapse of the Roman Republic, politicians were no less devious than contemporary pols.
One way or another, they tried to buy plebeian votes, to ply the rabble with goodies in hopes of winning their approval come election time. The tactic came to be known as providing panem et circenses or bread and circuses. Our politicians call it food stamps.
There is no doubt many Americans are hurting in President Barack Hussein Obama’s dismal economy with a continuing high rate of unemployment unrelieved by multi-billion dollar federal stimulations and a climbing poverty rate. Reflecting that failure, the Census Bureau reported in September that the number of people in the United States living below the official poverty line rose in 2010 by 2.6 million bringing the grand total of America’s poor to 46.2 million, the highest number in 52 years.
Way to go, Barack!
There is also no doubt that most of those poor would be considered rich by half the world and that some Americans take advantage of the system. Anyone standing in line to buy staples at the local A&P behind someone purchasing lobsters with a food stamp card can attest to that abuse.
Haphazardly throwing more and more money at a problem has never changed anything but the Obamians have no clue what else to do. They could just get out of the way of the chained giant that is the American capitalistic industrial base, lift restrictions and regulations and let it roar but that option is a non-starter with socialists.
However, there are those pesky things called elections so how do they make the discontented more content?
Why, bribe them, of course! . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9840.)
Before the collapse of the Roman Republic, politicians were no less devious than contemporary pols.
One way or another, they tried to buy plebeian votes, to ply the rabble with goodies in hopes of winning their approval come election time. The tactic came to be known as providing panem et circenses or bread and circuses. Our politicians call it food stamps.
There is no doubt many Americans are hurting in President Barack Hussein Obama’s dismal economy with a continuing high rate of unemployment unrelieved by multi-billion dollar federal stimulations and a climbing poverty rate. Reflecting that failure, the Census Bureau reported in September that the number of people in the United States living below the official poverty line rose in 2010 by 2.6 million bringing the grand total of America’s poor to 46.2 million, the highest number in 52 years.
Way to go, Barack!
There is also no doubt that most of those poor would be considered rich by half the world and that some Americans take advantage of the system. Anyone standing in line to buy staples at the local A&P behind someone purchasing lobsters with a food stamp card can attest to that abuse.
Haphazardly throwing more and more money at a problem has never changed anything but the Obamians have no clue what else to do. They could just get out of the way of the chained giant that is the American capitalistic industrial base, lift restrictions and regulations and let it roar but that option is a non-starter with socialists.
However, there are those pesky things called elections so how do they make the discontented more content?
Why, bribe them, of course! . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9840.)
Monday, December 5, 2011
It's Gingrich Time!
It's Gingrich Time!
All things come to those who wait and now it’s Gingrich’s turn. With the race for the Republican nomination for president seemingly narrowed to a pack of two, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, it was time for the Obama attack team to zero in on Newt since he has been waxing of late and Mitt has been stagnating.
Adhering to the military strategy of focusing on offing the leader, the Obamians have been dismantling the front runner until he is beaten to a pulp then deal with the remnants of the field. It worked with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain so why not go with whatever works?
Of course, even when he was bringing up the rear, Gingrich received his allotted share of undercutting but it’s a whole new ballgame now that he’s in the lead. The Big Guns are being trotted out to reduce him to size, if not to a quivering shadow of his former self.
However, with all his faults and baggage, Newt represents a lot of candidate to cut down and he’s not known to quiver much.
And, to utilize a tempting pun, his quiver is chock-full of arrows with which to bring down Obama, chiefly his knowledge, experience, intelligence, and debating expertise, all of which constitute fearsome forces to reckon with and the re-elect Obama team has evidently been doing a great deal of reckoning.
The latest Democrat stalwart to join the Democrat attack machine isn’t known for her intelligence or expertise in anything other than winning her own re-election in a super-safe congressional district and just launched her initial salvo of innuendo intended to inflict damage on her former House colleague.
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi didn’t really say anything of substance to Talking Points Memo but rather, in her sly fashion, tried to smear and intimidate Gingrich with a threat.
As she inelegantly put it without elaboration, “When the time is right. . . I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
Just think about it. An investigative committee of four so far un-identified individuals investigating an arch political enemy for twelve months behind non-transparent doors and compiling “a thousand pages of his stuff.” It’s a wonder they didn’t find Newt guilty of pulling grandma’s plug and tossing babies into wood chippers!
Imagine any committee secretly investigating Barack Hussein Obama for a year! They could determine he was born in Nairobi, his father was a confirmed Marxist drunk, and his mother had this peculiar thing for Muslim men. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629.)
All things come to those who wait and now it’s Gingrich’s turn. With the race for the Republican nomination for president seemingly narrowed to a pack of two, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, it was time for the Obama attack team to zero in on Newt since he has been waxing of late and Mitt has been stagnating.
Adhering to the military strategy of focusing on offing the leader, the Obamians have been dismantling the front runner until he is beaten to a pulp then deal with the remnants of the field. It worked with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain so why not go with whatever works?
Of course, even when he was bringing up the rear, Gingrich received his allotted share of undercutting but it’s a whole new ballgame now that he’s in the lead. The Big Guns are being trotted out to reduce him to size, if not to a quivering shadow of his former self.
However, with all his faults and baggage, Newt represents a lot of candidate to cut down and he’s not known to quiver much.
And, to utilize a tempting pun, his quiver is chock-full of arrows with which to bring down Obama, chiefly his knowledge, experience, intelligence, and debating expertise, all of which constitute fearsome forces to reckon with and the re-elect Obama team has evidently been doing a great deal of reckoning.
The latest Democrat stalwart to join the Democrat attack machine isn’t known for her intelligence or expertise in anything other than winning her own re-election in a super-safe congressional district and just launched her initial salvo of innuendo intended to inflict damage on her former House colleague.
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi didn’t really say anything of substance to Talking Points Memo but rather, in her sly fashion, tried to smear and intimidate Gingrich with a threat.
As she inelegantly put it without elaboration, “When the time is right. . . I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”
Just think about it. An investigative committee of four so far un-identified individuals investigating an arch political enemy for twelve months behind non-transparent doors and compiling “a thousand pages of his stuff.” It’s a wonder they didn’t find Newt guilty of pulling grandma’s plug and tossing babies into wood chippers!
Imagine any committee secretly investigating Barack Hussein Obama for a year! They could determine he was born in Nairobi, his father was a confirmed Marxist drunk, and his mother had this peculiar thing for Muslim men. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629.)
Confusions
Confusions
As I approach the status of a septuagenarian, an age which in earlier times would have been indicative of doddering or dead, I must admit to, not being doddered and definitely not dead, but to confusion.
Impudent younguns would attribute that confusion to almost seventy years on God’s green Earth. I think it’s caused by human nature more than by any other single factor, human inclinations for betterment at all costs, for power, for greed, for laziness.
I’m confused mostly why America elected an incompetent ideologue to lead us during the most dangerous times the country has faced since World War Two. That grave mistake can be rectified next year but it will take years to overcome the social, military, and international ramifications President Barack Hussein Obama visited on us.
Chalk one up for change for the sake of change.
The most serious error any nation can collectively make is what stockbrokers are mandated to caution, that prior performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, believing the past will surely be replicated in the future.
America’s long-term prior performance has been outstanding, an unprecedented prosperity, an unrivaled freedom, a history of fighting for and winning the rights of the oppressed at home and abroad, and unparalled opportunities for personal advancement which still exist though they are dwindling day by day.
The United States of America is by all measures an empire, economically, militarily, and in international influence and power an empire. What we forget at our peril is that empires have historically lasted an average of two centuries.
We are currently well into our third century, though quibblers may argue the USA wasn’t a great power until the 1900′s, which brings me back to my confusions.
After my bewilderment over electing a community organizer as president, my next confusion relates to those quibblers. Does a relative versus a supreme empire really matter? China’s Han Dynasty, the Mongols, the British Empire were extremely powerful both before and after they dominated their spheres of influence.
More troubling and confusing than such quibblers are Americans and pseudo-Americans who exemplify the worst elements of human nature.
Those who take to the streets like Bolsheviks to effect change instead of to ballot boxes demonstrate a gross lack of understanding and appreciation of the benefits this country offers them to, among other things, take to the streets like Bolsheviks without being shot. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9421.)
As I approach the status of a septuagenarian, an age which in earlier times would have been indicative of doddering or dead, I must admit to, not being doddered and definitely not dead, but to confusion.
Impudent younguns would attribute that confusion to almost seventy years on God’s green Earth. I think it’s caused by human nature more than by any other single factor, human inclinations for betterment at all costs, for power, for greed, for laziness.
I’m confused mostly why America elected an incompetent ideologue to lead us during the most dangerous times the country has faced since World War Two. That grave mistake can be rectified next year but it will take years to overcome the social, military, and international ramifications President Barack Hussein Obama visited on us.
Chalk one up for change for the sake of change.
The most serious error any nation can collectively make is what stockbrokers are mandated to caution, that prior performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, believing the past will surely be replicated in the future.
America’s long-term prior performance has been outstanding, an unprecedented prosperity, an unrivaled freedom, a history of fighting for and winning the rights of the oppressed at home and abroad, and unparalled opportunities for personal advancement which still exist though they are dwindling day by day.
The United States of America is by all measures an empire, economically, militarily, and in international influence and power an empire. What we forget at our peril is that empires have historically lasted an average of two centuries.
We are currently well into our third century, though quibblers may argue the USA wasn’t a great power until the 1900′s, which brings me back to my confusions.
After my bewilderment over electing a community organizer as president, my next confusion relates to those quibblers. Does a relative versus a supreme empire really matter? China’s Han Dynasty, the Mongols, the British Empire were extremely powerful both before and after they dominated their spheres of influence.
More troubling and confusing than such quibblers are Americans and pseudo-Americans who exemplify the worst elements of human nature.
Those who take to the streets like Bolsheviks to effect change instead of to ballot boxes demonstrate a gross lack of understanding and appreciation of the benefits this country offers them to, among other things, take to the streets like Bolsheviks without being shot. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9421.)
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky, Parallel Pedophiles
Michael Jackson and Jerry Sandusky, Parallel Pedophiles
I don’t know or care who Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers are but they should either dump him as a client or he should ask them what he should be saying to the press, if anything.
From the point of view of a non-attorney, I would be aghast at a client accused of serial homosexual child-molestation over decades giving interviews to the media. Granted, the interviewers didn’t dare suggest Sandusky was a homosexual pedophile but, still, allowing him to admit to “liking” young children was tantamount to permitting him to concede he was a Michael Jacksonite with similar preferences.
As with Michael Jackson, Jerry Sandusky liked young boys, although the MSM played down that predilection in both instances, preferring in Jackson’s case to present him as a lover of everyone, in Sandusky’s case as paternally affectionate toward boys and girls. Despite Jackson’s universal love and Sandusky’s fatherliness, neither was ever accused of paying inappropriate attention to females.
In both instances, the mainstreamers were engaged in a cover-up of the truth, that the King of Pop and the PSU assistant coach were gay pedophiles. The chief differences between the two seems to be that Jackson was never indicted and had smarter lawyers–but dumb doctors.
The main similarities are that both were delusional.
To the end, Michael Jackson maintained his innocence of molesting young boys while admitting he slept with them and, in at least one instance, made one young boy rich by paying for his silence.
Even after his arrest on 40 counts of sexual abuse of 8 children over 15 years, Jerry Sandusky insisted his bizarre behavior was totally innocent and that his work on their behalf with his Second Mile Foundation was not grooming them as victims but benefitting them.
There are a number of remarkable parallels between Jackson’s and Sandusky’s delusions.
In Martin Bashir’s disturbing 2003 documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson,” the pop star proudly admitted to activities at his 3000 acre Neverland ranch that would shame normal people. “It’s what the whole world should do,” he told Bashir, among other things.
Jackson also said, ”I tuck them in and put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book and we go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know. We have cookies. It’s very charming. It’s very sweet.” He asked Bashir, “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
Sweet, if you’re the child’s parent. Loving, if the bed-sharer is a consenting adult.
One 12 year old boy said he asked Jackson if he could stay in his bedroom and Jackson replied, “Look, if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.” Jackson believed children like to be touched and he would kill himself if he could not be close to young boys: “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately.”
In his defense, Jacksonphiles always bought into Michael’s persona as a man-child who saw nothing but innocence in his personal idiosyncrasies, a view that would absolve many pedophiles of any guilt whatsoever, even Jerry Sandusky. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8910.)
I don’t know or care who Jerry Sandusky’s lawyers are but they should either dump him as a client or he should ask them what he should be saying to the press, if anything.
From the point of view of a non-attorney, I would be aghast at a client accused of serial homosexual child-molestation over decades giving interviews to the media. Granted, the interviewers didn’t dare suggest Sandusky was a homosexual pedophile but, still, allowing him to admit to “liking” young children was tantamount to permitting him to concede he was a Michael Jacksonite with similar preferences.
As with Michael Jackson, Jerry Sandusky liked young boys, although the MSM played down that predilection in both instances, preferring in Jackson’s case to present him as a lover of everyone, in Sandusky’s case as paternally affectionate toward boys and girls. Despite Jackson’s universal love and Sandusky’s fatherliness, neither was ever accused of paying inappropriate attention to females.
In both instances, the mainstreamers were engaged in a cover-up of the truth, that the King of Pop and the PSU assistant coach were gay pedophiles. The chief differences between the two seems to be that Jackson was never indicted and had smarter lawyers–but dumb doctors.
The main similarities are that both were delusional.
To the end, Michael Jackson maintained his innocence of molesting young boys while admitting he slept with them and, in at least one instance, made one young boy rich by paying for his silence.
Even after his arrest on 40 counts of sexual abuse of 8 children over 15 years, Jerry Sandusky insisted his bizarre behavior was totally innocent and that his work on their behalf with his Second Mile Foundation was not grooming them as victims but benefitting them.
There are a number of remarkable parallels between Jackson’s and Sandusky’s delusions.
In Martin Bashir’s disturbing 2003 documentary, “Living With Michael Jackson,” the pop star proudly admitted to activities at his 3000 acre Neverland ranch that would shame normal people. “It’s what the whole world should do,” he told Bashir, among other things.
Jackson also said, ”I tuck them in and put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book and we go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know. We have cookies. It’s very charming. It’s very sweet.” He asked Bashir, “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone.”
Sweet, if you’re the child’s parent. Loving, if the bed-sharer is a consenting adult.
One 12 year old boy said he asked Jackson if he could stay in his bedroom and Jackson replied, “Look, if you love me you’ll sleep in the bed.” Jackson believed children like to be touched and he would kill himself if he could not be close to young boys: “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately.”
In his defense, Jacksonphiles always bought into Michael’s persona as a man-child who saw nothing but innocence in his personal idiosyncrasies, a view that would absolve many pedophiles of any guilt whatsoever, even Jerry Sandusky. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8910.)
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Various Cases Against Eric Holder
The Various Cases Against Eric Holder
The website for the Office of the Attorney General of the United States summarizes the purpose and function of the AG: He “represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.”
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., America’s 82nd attorney general, has failed to fulfill either the spirit or the letter of his office and both his actions and inactions have brought shame and disrepute to the Department of Justice.
He must resign or be impeached.
The AG’s duty of furnishing “advice and opinions” implicitly carries with it the understanding that that advice and those opinions are reasonable and lawful and that he conducts himself, his office, and his department in a manner reflecting respect for his duties which Mr. Holder has repeatedly failed to do.
The latest offense committed by this attorney general is simply one of many in a long string of offenses, any one of which provides sufficient grounds for his removal. Combined, they raise the questions of why he was chosen for office in the first place and why he was not removed sooner.
Pending the results of an ongoing congressional investigation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has called on President Obama to dump his appointee because of Holder’s failure to remedy the ATF’s incompetent handling of its Fast and Furious Mexican gun-running debacle.
Notably, Issa also pointed out that the problems aren’t confined to Fast and Furious but rather are “about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong.”
Translated, although the congressman is not yet alleging the attorney general ordered Fast and Furious, the “dumb program” which resulted in some 1400 weapons being given to Mexican drug lords and used to commit mayhem and murder in Mexico and along our border, Issa suggested Holder covered up the botching. (http://tiny.cc/6w18o)
Rep. Issa is being kind and should have elaborated on the ”pervasive” inability of Eric Holder’s Justice Department’s to distinguish between right and wrong. That inability pre-dates Holder’s confirmation as attorney general and has been the hallmark of the DoJ ever since Holder assumed his position.
If the cover-up of Fast and Furious isn’t sufficient to impeach Eric Holder, his record of racist statements and racist policies surely is.
Holder tipped his racist hand even before he was confirmed as the nation’s first African-American attorney general.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8655.)
The website for the Office of the Attorney General of the United States summarizes the purpose and function of the AG: He “represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.”
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., America’s 82nd attorney general, has failed to fulfill either the spirit or the letter of his office and both his actions and inactions have brought shame and disrepute to the Department of Justice.
He must resign or be impeached.
The AG’s duty of furnishing “advice and opinions” implicitly carries with it the understanding that that advice and those opinions are reasonable and lawful and that he conducts himself, his office, and his department in a manner reflecting respect for his duties which Mr. Holder has repeatedly failed to do.
The latest offense committed by this attorney general is simply one of many in a long string of offenses, any one of which provides sufficient grounds for his removal. Combined, they raise the questions of why he was chosen for office in the first place and why he was not removed sooner.
Pending the results of an ongoing congressional investigation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has called on President Obama to dump his appointee because of Holder’s failure to remedy the ATF’s incompetent handling of its Fast and Furious Mexican gun-running debacle.
Notably, Issa also pointed out that the problems aren’t confined to Fast and Furious but rather are “about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong.”
Translated, although the congressman is not yet alleging the attorney general ordered Fast and Furious, the “dumb program” which resulted in some 1400 weapons being given to Mexican drug lords and used to commit mayhem and murder in Mexico and along our border, Issa suggested Holder covered up the botching. (http://tiny.cc/6w18o)
Rep. Issa is being kind and should have elaborated on the ”pervasive” inability of Eric Holder’s Justice Department’s to distinguish between right and wrong. That inability pre-dates Holder’s confirmation as attorney general and has been the hallmark of the DoJ ever since Holder assumed his position.
If the cover-up of Fast and Furious isn’t sufficient to impeach Eric Holder, his record of racist statements and racist policies surely is.
Holder tipped his racist hand even before he was confirmed as the nation’s first African-American attorney general.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8655.)
DADT Repeal Consequence: Now Pvt. Benjamin Can Make Love to Mr. Ed!
DADT Repeal Consequence: Now Pvt. Benjamin Can Make Love to Mr. Ed!
Yet another installment from the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up Department: Sgt. Bilko may soon marry Pvt. Gomer Pyle and they may have a threesome with Arnold, the “Green Acres” pig or with Mr. Ed!
The Internet is notorious for publishing and publicizing lies, innuendo, fabrications, in a word, trash, okay, two words, trash and crap. It’s therefore incumbent on a serious blogger to verify outrageous stories before commenting on them and spreading the news.
One such story demanded more verification than usual since it involved an allegation that was so far beyond the pale of belief it bordered on the absurdly incomprehensible. As it turns out, very regrettably, the report is no longer an allegation but fact: The United States Senate has voted to approve the practice of bestiality in the military.
That is not a misprint.
Should the House of Representatives concur with the Senate and President Barack Hussein Obama sign the bill, men and women in Amrica’s armed forces will be free to engage in sexual relations with dogs, cats, chickens, horses, or with any other animal without fear of retribution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The repercussions of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law governing homosexual conduct in the military advocated by the president and endorsed by liberals everywhere have now come home to roost.
Before critics of that contention protest it as an unfair attack on gays, consider the timeline of the proposed legislation . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8633.)
Yet another installment from the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up Department: Sgt. Bilko may soon marry Pvt. Gomer Pyle and they may have a threesome with Arnold, the “Green Acres” pig or with Mr. Ed!
The Internet is notorious for publishing and publicizing lies, innuendo, fabrications, in a word, trash, okay, two words, trash and crap. It’s therefore incumbent on a serious blogger to verify outrageous stories before commenting on them and spreading the news.
One such story demanded more verification than usual since it involved an allegation that was so far beyond the pale of belief it bordered on the absurdly incomprehensible. As it turns out, very regrettably, the report is no longer an allegation but fact: The United States Senate has voted to approve the practice of bestiality in the military.
That is not a misprint.
Should the House of Representatives concur with the Senate and President Barack Hussein Obama sign the bill, men and women in Amrica’s armed forces will be free to engage in sexual relations with dogs, cats, chickens, horses, or with any other animal without fear of retribution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The repercussions of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law governing homosexual conduct in the military advocated by the president and endorsed by liberals everywhere have now come home to roost.
Before critics of that contention protest it as an unfair attack on gays, consider the timeline of the proposed legislation . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8633.)
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Decline and Fall of Barack Hussein Obama
The Decline and Fall of Barack Hussein Obama
At the risk of wishful thinking and of putting the kibosh on the wish by articulating it, signs are everywhere that President Barack Hussein Obama is on the way out.
Putting aside the facts that an obscure two-year United States senator whose administrative experience was nil, whose chief claim to fame was serving as a political hack organizing communities in Chicago, whose past was filled with unsavory associations, and no reasonable person considered him qualified to hold the most powerful position on the planet in the first place, the handwriting has been all over the White House walls indicating that come January, 2013 Obama will be viewing those walls from the outside.
In anticipation of his departure and to save face, the president expressed his feelings on joining the unemployment rolls he has done nothing to reduce and which his policies have virtually chiseled in stone, Obama has said he may very well be a one-termer.
From his mouth to God’s and Allah’s ears.
In view of Obama’s actions and inactions from the beginning of his presidency and most recently, all signs point to both his realization he had no rational expectation to have won the office in 2008 and that, since he did win, he and his family would milk it for all it was worth and that he would try to inflict as much of his leftist-socialist ideology on the nation in four years as he possibly could.
In the true beginning there was the Word. In Obama’s beginning, there was subterfuge and the only transparency has been an obvious inclination to drain every last ounce of advantage, every extravagant vacation, every party and golf outing, every campaign tour he could at taxpayer expense.
He preached transparency, and there was none. He promised to be different and he was diiferent but worse. He committed to change, and the changes he has accomplished are changes only the most devout leftists believe have been beneficial.
Obama and his Democrat Congress foisted on the American people the most unpopular health legislation in history, Obamacare, passed with no regard for the consequences to the well-being of the vast majority, as if those consequences didn’t matter, and they didn’t.
IOwntheWorld.com listed many of the ugly truths about this president that didn’t seem to matter to his worshipful mainstream media, truths and revelations which would have ended most candidates’ presumptions to lead the Free World.
Some would have ruled him out to govern Uzbekistan based on his bizarre appointments of tax cheats, left wing extremists, avowed Marxists, homosexual activists, and inept former convicts, based on his foreign policies that embittered allies, based on domestic policies that included failure to defend our borders, based on a background more suitable for a committed subversive than for a president.
Still, what this president and his administration have done lately even more strongly reinforce the view that Obama is resigned to surrendering not only the perks of his office but his ability to utilize that office to satisfy his handlers’ demands for change they believe in and desperately crave. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8367.)
At the risk of wishful thinking and of putting the kibosh on the wish by articulating it, signs are everywhere that President Barack Hussein Obama is on the way out.
Putting aside the facts that an obscure two-year United States senator whose administrative experience was nil, whose chief claim to fame was serving as a political hack organizing communities in Chicago, whose past was filled with unsavory associations, and no reasonable person considered him qualified to hold the most powerful position on the planet in the first place, the handwriting has been all over the White House walls indicating that come January, 2013 Obama will be viewing those walls from the outside.
In anticipation of his departure and to save face, the president expressed his feelings on joining the unemployment rolls he has done nothing to reduce and which his policies have virtually chiseled in stone, Obama has said he may very well be a one-termer.
From his mouth to God’s and Allah’s ears.
In view of Obama’s actions and inactions from the beginning of his presidency and most recently, all signs point to both his realization he had no rational expectation to have won the office in 2008 and that, since he did win, he and his family would milk it for all it was worth and that he would try to inflict as much of his leftist-socialist ideology on the nation in four years as he possibly could.
In the true beginning there was the Word. In Obama’s beginning, there was subterfuge and the only transparency has been an obvious inclination to drain every last ounce of advantage, every extravagant vacation, every party and golf outing, every campaign tour he could at taxpayer expense.
He preached transparency, and there was none. He promised to be different and he was diiferent but worse. He committed to change, and the changes he has accomplished are changes only the most devout leftists believe have been beneficial.
Obama and his Democrat Congress foisted on the American people the most unpopular health legislation in history, Obamacare, passed with no regard for the consequences to the well-being of the vast majority, as if those consequences didn’t matter, and they didn’t.
IOwntheWorld.com listed many of the ugly truths about this president that didn’t seem to matter to his worshipful mainstream media, truths and revelations which would have ended most candidates’ presumptions to lead the Free World.
Some would have ruled him out to govern Uzbekistan based on his bizarre appointments of tax cheats, left wing extremists, avowed Marxists, homosexual activists, and inept former convicts, based on his foreign policies that embittered allies, based on domestic policies that included failure to defend our borders, based on a background more suitable for a committed subversive than for a president.
Still, what this president and his administration have done lately even more strongly reinforce the view that Obama is resigned to surrendering not only the perks of his office but his ability to utilize that office to satisfy his handlers’ demands for change they believe in and desperately crave. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8367.)
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Another Holocaust, a Worse Holocaust
Another Holocaust, a Worse Holocaust
I recently watched, for the second time, Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List,” the movie Jerry Seinfeld largely missed because he was, umm, busy with his date in the balcony, at least on his television show.
Though not a Jew like Seinfeld, I was moved again by the unspeakable horrors depicted in “Schindler,” merciless murders by the Nazis of innocent people whose only crime was being Jewish, genocidal acts which were dwarfed by Mao Ze-Dong and Jozef Stalin but which were no less horrible.
The slaughter of six million Jews by Hitler, Himmler, and their accomplices should never be forgotten by anyone, no matter their religion. It was a crime committed not only against Jews but against humanity and all humanity was diminished by both its commission and the refusal of civilized nations to acknowledge it until it was too late.
However, despite the enormity of the Jewish Holocaust, it was far from the worst example of genocide. With over 50,000,000 victims to date and counting, abortion has to be considered the worst, even if it is now legal and socially acceptable.
Pro-life activist and founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, has pointed out distinctions between Hitler’s victims and victims of abortion. A Democrat Party candidate for president in 2012, Terry rightly perceives anti-Semitism as a plague on the Earth and outlined the differences between the Jewish Holocaust and the abortion holocaust.
Citing ”the chasm of disparity between the motivation to hate any people group vs. the deliberate murder of our own flesh and blood,” Terry concludes ”that these two holocausts are not only different, but that the slaughter of unborn babies is a far worse crime against God and man.”
Unlike what is happening to millions of innocents today, Randall argues that the people Hitler slaughtered in his maniacal quest for racial purification had some defenses, however limited they were. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8090.)
I recently watched, for the second time, Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List,” the movie Jerry Seinfeld largely missed because he was, umm, busy with his date in the balcony, at least on his television show.
Though not a Jew like Seinfeld, I was moved again by the unspeakable horrors depicted in “Schindler,” merciless murders by the Nazis of innocent people whose only crime was being Jewish, genocidal acts which were dwarfed by Mao Ze-Dong and Jozef Stalin but which were no less horrible.
The slaughter of six million Jews by Hitler, Himmler, and their accomplices should never be forgotten by anyone, no matter their religion. It was a crime committed not only against Jews but against humanity and all humanity was diminished by both its commission and the refusal of civilized nations to acknowledge it until it was too late.
However, despite the enormity of the Jewish Holocaust, it was far from the worst example of genocide. With over 50,000,000 victims to date and counting, abortion has to be considered the worst, even if it is now legal and socially acceptable.
Pro-life activist and founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, has pointed out distinctions between Hitler’s victims and victims of abortion. A Democrat Party candidate for president in 2012, Terry rightly perceives anti-Semitism as a plague on the Earth and outlined the differences between the Jewish Holocaust and the abortion holocaust.
Citing ”the chasm of disparity between the motivation to hate any people group vs. the deliberate murder of our own flesh and blood,” Terry concludes ”that these two holocausts are not only different, but that the slaughter of unborn babies is a far worse crime against God and man.”
Unlike what is happening to millions of innocents today, Randall argues that the people Hitler slaughtered in his maniacal quest for racial purification had some defenses, however limited they were. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8090.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)