OWS Sets New Lows, Eyes Chicago
What began last September in New York City as a complaint against unemployment and greed by some unemployed and student loan-burdened young people has long since been transformed by radical revolutionaries worldwide.
Since that transformation, President Barack Hussein Obama’s favorite protesters have repeatedly established new lows in uncivilized behavior. Characterized by his own Washington Post as the most polarizing president to ever sit in the White House, The Anointed One “ain’t seen nothing yet” when it comes to polarization.
In recent weeks, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) anarchists have devolved from almost-comical whiners into residents of rat-infested enclaves in the nation’s capital, throwing bricks and Bibles at police and urinating on a crucifix in San Francisco, using storm drains as toilets in Charlotte, tossing condoms at Catholic high school girls in Providence, and rioting and burning American flags in Oakland.
That’s not the half of the atrocities they have committed.
And, true to form, Obama’s MSM reports next to none of it and the president has refused to condemn even the rioting flag-burners. However, all those sick stories and more have been reported on such non-mainstream websites as Drudge.com and PatDollard.com.
It’s almost as if Obama’s MSM is censoring the news and Obama supports the anarchy. Imagine that!
In a farcically desperate attempt to characterize the Occupy Movement as simple socio-economic dissent, Obama’s MSM have compared it to the invariably-peaceful and decorous Tea Party demonstrations.
The fact that, in the 3-year existence of the Tea Party, not one member has ever been arrested while over 6,000 Occupiers have been jailed for everything from assault to rape to public nudity and copulation in their 4-month history puts the lie to that absurdity.
Among other evidence that Obama’s media have been shielding both the Occupy Movement and their most notable supporter from adverse publicity is their effort to hide plans to disrupt the Chicago G8 summit in May.
All the president’s minions have successfully cloaked the infestation of Marxists directing the Occupiers’ actions, the presence of criminals, skin-heads, neo-Fascists and other reprobates in the OWS midst, as well as the funding from arch-leftist George Soros.
Now, they are ignoring the call for spring chaos in Chicago by the leftist magazine, Adbusters. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12380.)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Global Warming Cooled--Again!
Global Warming Cooled--Again!
It’s been going on for years now, too many years, the greatest scam since Eve convinced Adam that apples were tasty and thus condemned mankind to lives of pain and suffering, and to mortality.
The saddest irony is that the global warming charade has been perpetrated by the most influential international body on Earth and perpetuated by the most powerful nation in the world. And, for very explicable geopolitical reasons, the U.N. and the U.S. consistently get away with it.
There was no censure after warming-scammers were outed as United Nations’ shills in 2009. There was no position re-assessment following a petition signed by 31,487 global warming-refuting scientists. There was no condemnation of character assassination of highly reputable climatologists who disagreed with the conventional, politically correct climate wisdom.
(See “Global Climate Frauds,” http://bit.ly/yZgqhs.)
Now the massive warming sham has been de-bunked once again, which is not to suggest the new revelations will make a difference any more than previous evidence and multiple scandals changed official mindsets.
When there are literally trillions of dollars at stake, reputations to defend, sinecures and individual wallets to be protected, facts and truth take back seats to propaganda.
The fact that cyclical global warming ended in 1997 and the truth that allegations of man-made global warming are a travesty were revealed last week by the British. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12366.)
It’s been going on for years now, too many years, the greatest scam since Eve convinced Adam that apples were tasty and thus condemned mankind to lives of pain and suffering, and to mortality.
The saddest irony is that the global warming charade has been perpetrated by the most influential international body on Earth and perpetuated by the most powerful nation in the world. And, for very explicable geopolitical reasons, the U.N. and the U.S. consistently get away with it.
There was no censure after warming-scammers were outed as United Nations’ shills in 2009. There was no position re-assessment following a petition signed by 31,487 global warming-refuting scientists. There was no condemnation of character assassination of highly reputable climatologists who disagreed with the conventional, politically correct climate wisdom.
(See “Global Climate Frauds,” http://bit.ly/yZgqhs.)
Now the massive warming sham has been de-bunked once again, which is not to suggest the new revelations will make a difference any more than previous evidence and multiple scandals changed official mindsets.
When there are literally trillions of dollars at stake, reputations to defend, sinecures and individual wallets to be protected, facts and truth take back seats to propaganda.
The fact that cyclical global warming ended in 1997 and the truth that allegations of man-made global warming are a travesty were revealed last week by the British. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12366.)
Monday, January 30, 2012
रेप. अल्लें वेस्ट फॉर प्रेसिडेंट!
Rep. Allen West for President!
It was bad enough that Rep. Allen West had to resign his Army commission because he valued the lives of soldiers under his command over an Iraqi jihadist. He should have known that political correctness reigns supreme in America’s military today.
It was bad enough that West went on to become the first black GOP congressman elected in Florida in 134 years. He should have known that African-Americans have no business being Republicans.
It was bad enough that West is a patriotic, conservative American aware of the Islamic terrorist threat and fed up with leftist politics but now he has really gone off the deep end, telling liberals where to go, and it isn’t to Bimini or to any of their other retreats where libs go to dust off their constituents’ detritus.
In a Saturday address at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day dinner, West told Washington’s Democrat liberals to go to hell with their liberalism.
As he bluntly said, ”Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
Unlike most politicians who pull their punches, West specifically named the Democrats who he thinks should vacate the premises: President Barack Hussein Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
He added that he will not allow Barack Hussein Obama to destroy the nation he, his family and friends have served and if his words meant he will be targeted by the Democrat Party, “Bring it on, baby.”
See and hear a clip of West’s remarks here http://bit.ly/wRON1e.
He could easily have included dozens of other Democrats who should “get the hell out” as well as the entire Occupy movement which, like their political counterparts, is less involved in working to correcting America’s flaws than in destroying, disrupting, and dismantling our country.
Unfortunately, the chances of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other leftists complying with West’s order are minimal but we can always hope. Unfortunately, too, Republican presidential hopefuls are currently too immersed in fratricidal warfare to recognize that their divisive bickering will only insure the nation will go to hell when Obama is re-elected in November.
Allen West has indicated he would not be averse to running for the vice presidency. I wonder if he would consider the presidency?
(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12353)
It was bad enough that Rep. Allen West had to resign his Army commission because he valued the lives of soldiers under his command over an Iraqi jihadist. He should have known that political correctness reigns supreme in America’s military today.
It was bad enough that West went on to become the first black GOP congressman elected in Florida in 134 years. He should have known that African-Americans have no business being Republicans.
It was bad enough that West is a patriotic, conservative American aware of the Islamic terrorist threat and fed up with leftist politics but now he has really gone off the deep end, telling liberals where to go, and it isn’t to Bimini or to any of their other retreats where libs go to dust off their constituents’ detritus.
In a Saturday address at the Palm Beach County Republican Party Lincoln Day dinner, West told Washington’s Democrat liberals to go to hell with their liberalism.
As he bluntly said, ”Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”
Unlike most politicians who pull their punches, West specifically named the Democrats who he thinks should vacate the premises: President Barack Hussein Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
He added that he will not allow Barack Hussein Obama to destroy the nation he, his family and friends have served and if his words meant he will be targeted by the Democrat Party, “Bring it on, baby.”
See and hear a clip of West’s remarks here http://bit.ly/wRON1e.
He could easily have included dozens of other Democrats who should “get the hell out” as well as the entire Occupy movement which, like their political counterparts, is less involved in working to correcting America’s flaws than in destroying, disrupting, and dismantling our country.
Unfortunately, the chances of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other leftists complying with West’s order are minimal but we can always hope. Unfortunately, too, Republican presidential hopefuls are currently too immersed in fratricidal warfare to recognize that their divisive bickering will only insure the nation will go to hell when Obama is re-elected in November.
Allen West has indicated he would not be averse to running for the vice presidency. I wonder if he would consider the presidency?
(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12353)
Sunday, January 29, 2012
अन अल्तेर्नातिवे तो थे दरें Act
An Alternative to the DREAM Act
In yet another effort to suck up to Latinos by pushing the so-called “DREAM Act,” a euphemistic acronym for the proposed law attempting to win votes by granting Latinos permanent residency in the United States, President Barack Hussein Obama has shown he is far more interested in re-election than in a commitment to the nation’s territorial integrity.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act has been kicking around Congress for a decade and has been repeatedly rejected primarily since it rewards illegal aliens for an alien invasion.
The DREAM Act would ostensibly reward children of alien invaders ”of good moral character” with permanent residency if they have lived in the U.S. for five years, graduated from an accredited high school, and attended college for two years.
Or, illegals up to age 35–far beyond the status of “children”–may qualify if they had “served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.”
The stated rationale for the proposed legislation? Extending America’s gracious hand to people who are already in residence, who we can’t figure out how to get rid of, and who haven’t committed crimes they have been caught committing. The effective result? The Democrat Party adds up to 2.1 million grateful Latino voters to its ranks.
Florida Republican Rep. David Rivera, reasoning that, “If somebody is willing to die for America, then certainly they deserve a chance at life in America,” wants to change the DREAM Act to the ARMS Act, the Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act.
He proposes scrapping the college feature in favor of restricting the path to citizenship to those who serve in the military. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12329.)
In yet another effort to suck up to Latinos by pushing the so-called “DREAM Act,” a euphemistic acronym for the proposed law attempting to win votes by granting Latinos permanent residency in the United States, President Barack Hussein Obama has shown he is far more interested in re-election than in a commitment to the nation’s territorial integrity.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act has been kicking around Congress for a decade and has been repeatedly rejected primarily since it rewards illegal aliens for an alien invasion.
The DREAM Act would ostensibly reward children of alien invaders ”of good moral character” with permanent residency if they have lived in the U.S. for five years, graduated from an accredited high school, and attended college for two years.
Or, illegals up to age 35–far beyond the status of “children”–may qualify if they had “served in the armed services for at least 2 years and, if discharged, received an honorable discharge.”
The stated rationale for the proposed legislation? Extending America’s gracious hand to people who are already in residence, who we can’t figure out how to get rid of, and who haven’t committed crimes they have been caught committing. The effective result? The Democrat Party adds up to 2.1 million grateful Latino voters to its ranks.
Florida Republican Rep. David Rivera, reasoning that, “If somebody is willing to die for America, then certainly they deserve a chance at life in America,” wants to change the DREAM Act to the ARMS Act, the Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act.
He proposes scrapping the college feature in favor of restricting the path to citizenship to those who serve in the military. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12329.)
क्य्न्थिया निक्सों रिलेस गेस विथ थे Truth
Cynthia Nixon Riles Gays with the Truth
Liberals don’t seem to like much and gay liberals like even less.
True, liberals like other libs and defend them at all costs to reason and support everything associated with liberalism but outside of those delights they seem to be extremely discontented people who find little if any real joy in life and tend to react strongly when their illusory balloons are punctured with truth.
Actress Cynthia Nixon recently raised the ire of the homosexual community, including the famously flaming Perez Hilton, when she hurled a spear through the very heart of the gay ethos. Nixon confessed she chose to go lesbian and that her decision was not dictated by any genetic predisposition.
Nixon’s radical admission flies in the face of the fundamental gay mantra that they are “born that way” and don’t become homosexuals due to outside influences such as being momma’s boys or girls rejected by males. Undoubtedly, some are genetically programmed toward their own gender but studies have shown that nurture and not nature is a determinant in many instances.
Best known for her role as Amanda Hobbes on the raunchy “Sex and the City” HBO series and currently appearing as a cancer patient in the Broadway production “Wit,” Nixon in effect supports the nurture theory, contradicting contentions of the Gay Lobby which demands people believe their inclinations are beyond their control.
The award-winning Nixon is nothing if not in control of her decisions and choices.
She had a 15-year heterosexual relationship with English professor Danny Mozes which produced two children and dumped Prof. Mozes of her own volition. She is now engaged to “education activist” Christine Marinoni who gave birth to “their” son last year.
She infuriated gays throughout the planet by being honest about consciously choosing a gay lifestyle, thereby . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12321.)
Liberals don’t seem to like much and gay liberals like even less.
True, liberals like other libs and defend them at all costs to reason and support everything associated with liberalism but outside of those delights they seem to be extremely discontented people who find little if any real joy in life and tend to react strongly when their illusory balloons are punctured with truth.
Actress Cynthia Nixon recently raised the ire of the homosexual community, including the famously flaming Perez Hilton, when she hurled a spear through the very heart of the gay ethos. Nixon confessed she chose to go lesbian and that her decision was not dictated by any genetic predisposition.
Nixon’s radical admission flies in the face of the fundamental gay mantra that they are “born that way” and don’t become homosexuals due to outside influences such as being momma’s boys or girls rejected by males. Undoubtedly, some are genetically programmed toward their own gender but studies have shown that nurture and not nature is a determinant in many instances.
Best known for her role as Amanda Hobbes on the raunchy “Sex and the City” HBO series and currently appearing as a cancer patient in the Broadway production “Wit,” Nixon in effect supports the nurture theory, contradicting contentions of the Gay Lobby which demands people believe their inclinations are beyond their control.
The award-winning Nixon is nothing if not in control of her decisions and choices.
She had a 15-year heterosexual relationship with English professor Danny Mozes which produced two children and dumped Prof. Mozes of her own volition. She is now engaged to “education activist” Christine Marinoni who gave birth to “their” son last year.
She infuriated gays throughout the planet by being honest about consciously choosing a gay lifestyle, thereby . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12321.)
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Christianity and Leftist Atheism
Christianity and Leftist Atheism
Religion and faith are touchy concepts in a nation without a state religion and moreso in a country that has become as secular as ours where any public religious display is met by an uproar from the American Civil Liberties Union which consistently invokes a non-existent constitutional ”separation of church and state” clause.
The ACLU and other atheists hang their hats on the Constitution’s Second Amendment which in part reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Those words reflect the Founding Fathers’ abhorrence of the idea of state religion and insistence on the right of absolute religious freedom but make no reference to banning religion from the public square.
Founded on fundamentally Christian principles, for over a century America thrived on religious precepts and evolved into a predominantly-Christian nation where, even today, 77% of our citizens describe themselves as Christians–despite ACLU protests to the contrary.
Nevertheless, the issues of religion and Christianity are far from fully resolved in America and continue to be raised by atheists and other godless people.
Religion became an issue in 1928 with Alfred E. Smith and in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, both Roman Catholics. It has again become a hot topic in 2012 because Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is an adherent to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Mormon.
The point is, Does anyone’s religion or lack thereof really matter in the United States? Aside from radical faiths dedicated to our destruction, atheists, and the Left, it shouldn’t, yet it does.
Religion obviously matters to sixteen year old budding atheist Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Rhode Island’s Cranston High School West.
Ms. Ahlquist protested, with help from the ACLU, against the display of a 49-year old “prayer banner” at Cranston. She succeeded in getting a federal judge to rule the banner unconstitutional and school officials to cover it up in spite of widespread community opposition.
The prayer addresses “Our Heavenly Father” and exhorts students to grow morally and physically, to be kind, helpful, honest, and friendly, and to smile.
Ms. Ahlquist won that battle though she has been beset by reprehensible threats due to her complaints. Cranston, Rhode Island, and the rest of us lost. See the story and the text of the offensive prayer here http://huff.to/xJatyL.
Leftist politics not only makes for strange bedfellows. It makes for some strange and nasty people who use their contempt for religion to further political agendas.
Chris Matthews, the unacknowledged Clown Prince of MSNBC, a nice, Catholic boy as my mother used to call virtually every Catholic boy, somewhere lost his way, his decency, and his mind. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12298.
Religion and faith are touchy concepts in a nation without a state religion and moreso in a country that has become as secular as ours where any public religious display is met by an uproar from the American Civil Liberties Union which consistently invokes a non-existent constitutional ”separation of church and state” clause.
The ACLU and other atheists hang their hats on the Constitution’s Second Amendment which in part reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Those words reflect the Founding Fathers’ abhorrence of the idea of state religion and insistence on the right of absolute religious freedom but make no reference to banning religion from the public square.
Founded on fundamentally Christian principles, for over a century America thrived on religious precepts and evolved into a predominantly-Christian nation where, even today, 77% of our citizens describe themselves as Christians–despite ACLU protests to the contrary.
Nevertheless, the issues of religion and Christianity are far from fully resolved in America and continue to be raised by atheists and other godless people.
Religion became an issue in 1928 with Alfred E. Smith and in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, both Roman Catholics. It has again become a hot topic in 2012 because Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is an adherent to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Mormon.
The point is, Does anyone’s religion or lack thereof really matter in the United States? Aside from radical faiths dedicated to our destruction, atheists, and the Left, it shouldn’t, yet it does.
Religion obviously matters to sixteen year old budding atheist Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Rhode Island’s Cranston High School West.
Ms. Ahlquist protested, with help from the ACLU, against the display of a 49-year old “prayer banner” at Cranston. She succeeded in getting a federal judge to rule the banner unconstitutional and school officials to cover it up in spite of widespread community opposition.
The prayer addresses “Our Heavenly Father” and exhorts students to grow morally and physically, to be kind, helpful, honest, and friendly, and to smile.
Ms. Ahlquist won that battle though she has been beset by reprehensible threats due to her complaints. Cranston, Rhode Island, and the rest of us lost. See the story and the text of the offensive prayer here http://huff.to/xJatyL.
Leftist politics not only makes for strange bedfellows. It makes for some strange and nasty people who use their contempt for religion to further political agendas.
Chris Matthews, the unacknowledged Clown Prince of MSNBC, a nice, Catholic boy as my mother used to call virtually every Catholic boy, somewhere lost his way, his decency, and his mind. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12298.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Words Have Meanings, in Books and at Airports
Words Have Meanings, in Books and at Airports
Remember when your mother told you, “Words have meanings! Be careful of what you say because what you say can hurt people. What you say and how you say it tells others the type of person you are and what they will think of you.”
No? Well, I can’t remember my mom saying anything like that either. She was always too busy warning me not to play in the street and telling me to go wash my face.
But both spoken and written words can have powerful meanings and can be reflective of both the character of the speaker and the speaker’s estimation of the character of the addressee.
President Barack Hussein is very adept at using words, words and cliches fed to him by his handlers and dictated by his teleprompters, meaningless vocabulary like “hope,” and “change,” and “yes, we can.” He’s not so adept at dealing with those who disagree with him.
The notoriously thin-skinned Obama who early on in his run for the presidency expressed sensitivity over the obsession with his Dumbo ears and ruled out any political exploitatation of his daughters and then consistently exploited Malia and Sasha, met face-to-face Wednesday with Arizona governor Jan Brewer who seemed to mince no words with the president.
Brewer didn’t mention Dumbo but they did engage in a heated exchange on the Phoenix-Gateway Airport tarmac. Obama’s MSM and the leftist blogosphere have latched onto the photo of Brewer wagging her finger at the president of the United States as clear evidence conservatives have no respect for the presidency and as emblematic of conservatives’ disrespect for the country.
Based on a picture, the ever-objective, HufPo’s Michael Shaw described Brewer as “a reactionary governor, overflowing with the same lack of respect for the President as the radical far-right she’s aligned with” and called it an “ambush” despite raw video showing Brewer greeted him warmly with a big smile and handshake.
Although she had to publicly say Obama “loves his country,” the polite and dignified Gov. Brewer may have no respect for him at all but she is concerned over the integrity of America’s borders and has the deepest regard for our country, a concern and patriotic feeling the president has yet to demonstrate.
Full details of that brief airport contretemps and the contents of the letter the governor handed to Obama haven’t been released, and may never be.
However, it is known that the governor and the president weren’t happy with one another. He didn’t like her criticism of him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast, she wasn’t pleased with his rudeness and walking away before she was done speaking.
(As an aside, sales of Scorpions for Breakfast skyrocketed after the finger-wagging picture hit the blogosphere.)
According to Politico.com, a disingenuous committed Obamian supporter, Brewer said, “He brought up my book. And he was a little tense. I asked him if he read [it] . . . and he said he read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least. I was trying to be very calm.”
It seems our president is developing a petulant pattern over pesky, un-cordial words. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12287.)
Remember when your mother told you, “Words have meanings! Be careful of what you say because what you say can hurt people. What you say and how you say it tells others the type of person you are and what they will think of you.”
No? Well, I can’t remember my mom saying anything like that either. She was always too busy warning me not to play in the street and telling me to go wash my face.
But both spoken and written words can have powerful meanings and can be reflective of both the character of the speaker and the speaker’s estimation of the character of the addressee.
President Barack Hussein is very adept at using words, words and cliches fed to him by his handlers and dictated by his teleprompters, meaningless vocabulary like “hope,” and “change,” and “yes, we can.” He’s not so adept at dealing with those who disagree with him.
The notoriously thin-skinned Obama who early on in his run for the presidency expressed sensitivity over the obsession with his Dumbo ears and ruled out any political exploitatation of his daughters and then consistently exploited Malia and Sasha, met face-to-face Wednesday with Arizona governor Jan Brewer who seemed to mince no words with the president.
Brewer didn’t mention Dumbo but they did engage in a heated exchange on the Phoenix-Gateway Airport tarmac. Obama’s MSM and the leftist blogosphere have latched onto the photo of Brewer wagging her finger at the president of the United States as clear evidence conservatives have no respect for the presidency and as emblematic of conservatives’ disrespect for the country.
Based on a picture, the ever-objective, HufPo’s Michael Shaw described Brewer as “a reactionary governor, overflowing with the same lack of respect for the President as the radical far-right she’s aligned with” and called it an “ambush” despite raw video showing Brewer greeted him warmly with a big smile and handshake.
Although she had to publicly say Obama “loves his country,” the polite and dignified Gov. Brewer may have no respect for him at all but she is concerned over the integrity of America’s borders and has the deepest regard for our country, a concern and patriotic feeling the president has yet to demonstrate.
Full details of that brief airport contretemps and the contents of the letter the governor handed to Obama haven’t been released, and may never be.
However, it is known that the governor and the president weren’t happy with one another. He didn’t like her criticism of him in her book, Scorpions for Breakfast, she wasn’t pleased with his rudeness and walking away before she was done speaking.
(As an aside, sales of Scorpions for Breakfast skyrocketed after the finger-wagging picture hit the blogosphere.)
According to Politico.com, a disingenuous committed Obamian supporter, Brewer said, “He brought up my book. And he was a little tense. I asked him if he read [it] . . . and he said he read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least. I was trying to be very calm.”
It seems our president is developing a petulant pattern over pesky, un-cordial words. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12287.)
Hockey Salutations, Flying Accusations, Debt Corrections
Hockey Salutations, Flying Accusations, Debt Corrections
Believe it or not, news reports don’t always get stories accurate or complete and sometimes don’t get them at all.
Let’s start with one that received little play in the mainstream media, the commendable story of an NHL player who had the gumption to effectively tell the president of the United States to stick an invitation to the White House in his hat.
The belated invite was extended to the Boston Bruins almost a year late, coincidentally during a presidential election year, ostensibly to honor the team’s 2011 Stanley Cup championship.
Celebrated Bruins’ goalie, Tim Thomas, winner of the Vezina Trophy, opted to pass on the privilige of having the president pat him on the back–and get some much-needed publicity before November 6th.
Not content with the snub and surely causing cringing in the Bruins’ executive offices, Thomas explained the reasons for his protest.
As he said, ”I believe the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties, and property of the people,” although he backtracked slightly by adding that his decision “was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country.”
Thomas is right on all counts.
I wouldn’t even suggest Thomas believes President Barack Hussein Obama is the primary reason “the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties, and property of the people” and I extend him kudos for having the nerve to speak his mind and absent himself from an obviously political campaign appearance.
Another story relates to the historical accuracy of producer George Lucas’ newly-released film “Red Tails.”
Acclaimed by everyone except the people who understand movies, film critics, “Red Tails” is a World War Two action flick featuring a virtually all-black cast and dealing with the exploits of the U.S. Air Corp’s Tuskegee Airmen, an anomoly at the time in a segregated military.
There is no doubt as to the racial segregation in our military prior to President Truman’s abolition of the practice in 1948. Likewise, there is no doubt the Tuskegee black fliers served their nation well in WWII primarily in bomber escort missions with the 332nd Fighter Group.
There is, however, much doubt concerning the Tuskegee Airmens’ claim for tears that they never lost a bomber during those European missions. There are also substantiated reports they sometimes acted less than heroically and less than competently. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12263.)
Believe it or not, news reports don’t always get stories accurate or complete and sometimes don’t get them at all.
Let’s start with one that received little play in the mainstream media, the commendable story of an NHL player who had the gumption to effectively tell the president of the United States to stick an invitation to the White House in his hat.
The belated invite was extended to the Boston Bruins almost a year late, coincidentally during a presidential election year, ostensibly to honor the team’s 2011 Stanley Cup championship.
Celebrated Bruins’ goalie, Tim Thomas, winner of the Vezina Trophy, opted to pass on the privilige of having the president pat him on the back–and get some much-needed publicity before November 6th.
Not content with the snub and surely causing cringing in the Bruins’ executive offices, Thomas explained the reasons for his protest.
As he said, ”I believe the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties, and property of the people,” although he backtracked slightly by adding that his decision “was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country.”
Thomas is right on all counts.
I wouldn’t even suggest Thomas believes President Barack Hussein Obama is the primary reason “the federal government has grown out of control, threatening the rights, liberties, and property of the people” and I extend him kudos for having the nerve to speak his mind and absent himself from an obviously political campaign appearance.
Another story relates to the historical accuracy of producer George Lucas’ newly-released film “Red Tails.”
Acclaimed by everyone except the people who understand movies, film critics, “Red Tails” is a World War Two action flick featuring a virtually all-black cast and dealing with the exploits of the U.S. Air Corp’s Tuskegee Airmen, an anomoly at the time in a segregated military.
There is no doubt as to the racial segregation in our military prior to President Truman’s abolition of the practice in 1948. Likewise, there is no doubt the Tuskegee black fliers served their nation well in WWII primarily in bomber escort missions with the 332nd Fighter Group.
There is, however, much doubt concerning the Tuskegee Airmens’ claim for tears that they never lost a bomber during those European missions. There are also substantiated reports they sometimes acted less than heroically and less than competently. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12263.)
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
WMAQ in Chicago Censors Life
WMAQ in Chicago Censors Life
Chicago, City of the Shady Shoulders, legendary for political corruption and its murder rate, can now be called Censorship City as well thanks to WMAQ-TV. In defiance of federal law, the NBC affiliate is refusing to air a pro-life Super Bowl ad sponsored by Randall Terry.
Randall Terry isn’t exactly a household name and has as much of a chance of being elected president as I do but he is very well-known in anti-abortion circles and raised sufficient funds to run the ad in 25 venues throughout the country on Super Bowl Sunday.
Despite the fact the 30-second spot was accepted and will air in Boston, Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and in other locales, NBC’s WMAQ essentially told Terry they would break the law and refused to run it.
With reasonable cause for suspicion, Terry believes Chicago’s Democrat machine headed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Hussein Obama’s former Chief of Staff, is behind the WMAQ decision to repress the free and legal expression of his pro-life views.
Obama, the most avid supporter of abortion ever to sit in the White House, couldn’t very well allow his hometown to embarrass him with facts, now could he?
As a bonafide candidate for federal office, Terry is entitled under FCC regulations to sponsor the ad and stations licensed by the FCC are required to air it or said license will be subject to revocation.
Randall Terry is “legally qualified” under FCC regulations yet WMAQ is choosing to deny him his rights as an American citizen. For informational purposes, the station’s telephone number is 312.836.5555, Station Manager, Frank Whitacre, general Manager, Larry Wert. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12277.)
Chicago, City of the Shady Shoulders, legendary for political corruption and its murder rate, can now be called Censorship City as well thanks to WMAQ-TV. In defiance of federal law, the NBC affiliate is refusing to air a pro-life Super Bowl ad sponsored by Randall Terry.
Randall Terry isn’t exactly a household name and has as much of a chance of being elected president as I do but he is very well-known in anti-abortion circles and raised sufficient funds to run the ad in 25 venues throughout the country on Super Bowl Sunday.
Despite the fact the 30-second spot was accepted and will air in Boston, Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and in other locales, NBC’s WMAQ essentially told Terry they would break the law and refused to run it.
With reasonable cause for suspicion, Terry believes Chicago’s Democrat machine headed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Hussein Obama’s former Chief of Staff, is behind the WMAQ decision to repress the free and legal expression of his pro-life views.
Obama, the most avid supporter of abortion ever to sit in the White House, couldn’t very well allow his hometown to embarrass him with facts, now could he?
As a bonafide candidate for federal office, Terry is entitled under FCC regulations to sponsor the ad and stations licensed by the FCC are required to air it or said license will be subject to revocation.
Randall Terry is “legally qualified” under FCC regulations yet WMAQ is choosing to deny him his rights as an American citizen. For informational purposes, the station’s telephone number is 312.836.5555, Station Manager, Frank Whitacre, general Manager, Larry Wert. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12277.)
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Obama's Class Warfare--Mission Accomplished?
Obama's Class Warfare--Mission Accomplished?
Anyone who has closely or even cursorily followed the actions, declarations, and proposals of candidate Barack Hussein Obama and the enacted socio-economic policies of the Obama presidency has to be aware that he represents the greatest threat to domestic and international tranquility in the history of the United States.
Obama’s slip-of-the-lip to Joe the Plumber in 2008 that his intent was to “share the wealth” should have alerted Americans to his radical Marxist inclinations, but it didn’t.
His repeated statements pitting rich against the poor, the haves against those who haven’t, should have informed the electorate that he was launching class warfare, but they didn’t.
His Justice Department’s black racist decisions and his demeaning of white Americans should have shown he was fostering racial antagonisms and pitting race against race, but they didn’t.
His foisting of Obamacare on the American people, a socialistic scheme designed to kill off the sick and elderly patterned on Britain’s failed NHS, should have proven he was far more committed to his legacy than to the well-being of Americans, but it didn’t.
His enthusiastic support for the revolutionist Occupy movement intent on subverting the capitalist system that has made America great should have been a giveaway that Obama wasn’t a real American, but it didn’t.
None of that evidence was sufficient to convince Obama idolators who still mindlessly subscribed to their illusion of Barack was their dream rather than what he is, a nightmare and a fraud.
The president’s designated apologist, Press Secretary Jay Carney, was hit with an easy question at his Monday press briefing, a simple query as to whether a picture of Saul Alinsky hangs in the White House. The reporter was motivated to ask since Newt Gingrich has reasonably claimed Obama’s vision comes from the man who coined the term, “community organizer,” Saul David Alinsky.
Amid titters, Carney scoffed, waffled, defended his boss’s background as a Chicago “community organizer,” and replied without answering the qustion, ”I’ll just leave it at that.”
See Carney dance around Saul Alinsky here http://bit.ly/y0KKJn.
I doubt there’s a framed portrait of Alinsky in the executive mansion. There would be no need since Alinsky extremist socialism is firmly embedded in this president’s psyche and philosophy so who needs a picture?
Alinsky never became a registered Communist. He was so full of chutzpa that he refused to be bound by Communism’s “doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated” rigidity. Instead, he blazed his own trail of doctrinaire, humorless, intellectually constipated independence that served to supplement Communism’s and which, if anything, was more radical.
He virtually invented the job of community organizer, a euphemism for a rabble-rouser engaged in stirring social discontent and societal revolution and developed that profession on the streets of Chicago, the same streets on which his disciple Obama later practiced Alinskyite tactics.
As Linn and Ari Armstrong noted, “Beneath his [Alinsky's] platitudes about democracy and the ‘importance and worth in the individual,’ Alinsky reveals his core goal: to ‘use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people.’ “
Sound familiar? It should because Obama said much the same thing when he told Joe the Plumber that his aim was to “spread the wealth around” through political force.
In another relevant observation, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12244.)
Anyone who has closely or even cursorily followed the actions, declarations, and proposals of candidate Barack Hussein Obama and the enacted socio-economic policies of the Obama presidency has to be aware that he represents the greatest threat to domestic and international tranquility in the history of the United States.
Obama’s slip-of-the-lip to Joe the Plumber in 2008 that his intent was to “share the wealth” should have alerted Americans to his radical Marxist inclinations, but it didn’t.
His repeated statements pitting rich against the poor, the haves against those who haven’t, should have informed the electorate that he was launching class warfare, but they didn’t.
His Justice Department’s black racist decisions and his demeaning of white Americans should have shown he was fostering racial antagonisms and pitting race against race, but they didn’t.
His foisting of Obamacare on the American people, a socialistic scheme designed to kill off the sick and elderly patterned on Britain’s failed NHS, should have proven he was far more committed to his legacy than to the well-being of Americans, but it didn’t.
His enthusiastic support for the revolutionist Occupy movement intent on subverting the capitalist system that has made America great should have been a giveaway that Obama wasn’t a real American, but it didn’t.
None of that evidence was sufficient to convince Obama idolators who still mindlessly subscribed to their illusion of Barack was their dream rather than what he is, a nightmare and a fraud.
The president’s designated apologist, Press Secretary Jay Carney, was hit with an easy question at his Monday press briefing, a simple query as to whether a picture of Saul Alinsky hangs in the White House. The reporter was motivated to ask since Newt Gingrich has reasonably claimed Obama’s vision comes from the man who coined the term, “community organizer,” Saul David Alinsky.
Amid titters, Carney scoffed, waffled, defended his boss’s background as a Chicago “community organizer,” and replied without answering the qustion, ”I’ll just leave it at that.”
See Carney dance around Saul Alinsky here http://bit.ly/y0KKJn.
I doubt there’s a framed portrait of Alinsky in the executive mansion. There would be no need since Alinsky extremist socialism is firmly embedded in this president’s psyche and philosophy so who needs a picture?
Alinsky never became a registered Communist. He was so full of chutzpa that he refused to be bound by Communism’s “doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated” rigidity. Instead, he blazed his own trail of doctrinaire, humorless, intellectually constipated independence that served to supplement Communism’s and which, if anything, was more radical.
He virtually invented the job of community organizer, a euphemism for a rabble-rouser engaged in stirring social discontent and societal revolution and developed that profession on the streets of Chicago, the same streets on which his disciple Obama later practiced Alinskyite tactics.
As Linn and Ari Armstrong noted, “Beneath his [Alinsky's] platitudes about democracy and the ‘importance and worth in the individual,’ Alinsky reveals his core goal: to ‘use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people.’ “
Sound familiar? It should because Obama said much the same thing when he told Joe the Plumber that his aim was to “spread the wealth around” through political force.
In another relevant observation, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12244.)
Monday, January 23, 2012
Disturbed and Disturbing British People
Disturbed and Disturbing British People
I doubt any of us are 100% sane in our insane world but some of us are clearly nuttier than most. Two examples, not coincidentally from crazy ol’ England: a teen girl who pretended to be a teen boy and a child who can’t possibly know what “it” is.
They say teenage girls are often erratic, flighty, and ditzy. Of course, “they” say a lot of things and, when the “they” refers to adolescent boys, their motivations are often suspect.
What is less disputable is that many teens in the rapidly-crumbling Western World are acting sexier and acting out their new-found sexuality nowadays like they never have before.
Role models such as Miley Cyrus and the Spears sisters, television shows like “Glee,” increasingly lax dress codes and encouragement in schools partly explain the growing phenomenon as does Tyra Banks featuring teens proudly admitting they have kissed other girls.
There are also tons of anecdotal evidence that shows teens have been experimenting with lesbianism in showers and sleep-overs, frequently at the instigation of their male peers.
Across the pond, a teen–barely a teen at 19–has taken advantage of loosened moral codes and taken lesbian seduction to a whole new level by posing as multiple boys in order to date and grope younger girls.
Apparently, the enterprising Gemma Barker was very successful in her stratagem.
According to London’s Daily Mail, ”In an extraordinary deception, she created false alter egos so she could have sexual encounters with her 15 and 16-year-old victims,” wore baggy boy clothes, talked and acted like a boy, set up three different male Facebook profiles, and even convinced a victim’s family that she was a he.
The Mail didn’t report how, when, and where Barker was able to kiss, cuddle, and grope the girls who attended the same school she had attended without being discovered. Police made the gender discovery after a parent woke up and turned her in.
She was arrested, searched, and admitted her guilt on two charges of sexual assault and one of fraud.
Aside from obvious parental negligence in the case of Gemma Barker–that how, when, and where issue–there is the question of what Brit parents are thinking these days if they condone young boys’ intimacies with their daughters. The Barker affair is hardly the first.
Among others, three years ago, England was rocked by the smarmy tale of 12 year old Alfie Patten impregnating 15 year old Chantelle Steadman. Chantelle’s mum was fully aware they were sleeping together–in her home. As things turned out, a slew of other boys were sharing Chantelle and Alfie wasn’t the father. See “Alfie Updated,” http://bit.ly/AnDvMo.
As of now, it seems Barker’s solicitors will go for a semi-insanity defense, claiming the defendant is autistic and “a very lonely character.” The judge thinks she’s “manipulative and mean.” Whatever she is, she is facing two years in prison.
Even more bizarre is the matter of “Sasha,” who Moonbattery.com aptly surmises “will eventually put a psychiatrist’s kids through college.” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12190.)
I doubt any of us are 100% sane in our insane world but some of us are clearly nuttier than most. Two examples, not coincidentally from crazy ol’ England: a teen girl who pretended to be a teen boy and a child who can’t possibly know what “it” is.
They say teenage girls are often erratic, flighty, and ditzy. Of course, “they” say a lot of things and, when the “they” refers to adolescent boys, their motivations are often suspect.
What is less disputable is that many teens in the rapidly-crumbling Western World are acting sexier and acting out their new-found sexuality nowadays like they never have before.
Role models such as Miley Cyrus and the Spears sisters, television shows like “Glee,” increasingly lax dress codes and encouragement in schools partly explain the growing phenomenon as does Tyra Banks featuring teens proudly admitting they have kissed other girls.
There are also tons of anecdotal evidence that shows teens have been experimenting with lesbianism in showers and sleep-overs, frequently at the instigation of their male peers.
Across the pond, a teen–barely a teen at 19–has taken advantage of loosened moral codes and taken lesbian seduction to a whole new level by posing as multiple boys in order to date and grope younger girls.
Apparently, the enterprising Gemma Barker was very successful in her stratagem.
According to London’s Daily Mail, ”In an extraordinary deception, she created false alter egos so she could have sexual encounters with her 15 and 16-year-old victims,” wore baggy boy clothes, talked and acted like a boy, set up three different male Facebook profiles, and even convinced a victim’s family that she was a he.
The Mail didn’t report how, when, and where Barker was able to kiss, cuddle, and grope the girls who attended the same school she had attended without being discovered. Police made the gender discovery after a parent woke up and turned her in.
She was arrested, searched, and admitted her guilt on two charges of sexual assault and one of fraud.
Aside from obvious parental negligence in the case of Gemma Barker–that how, when, and where issue–there is the question of what Brit parents are thinking these days if they condone young boys’ intimacies with their daughters. The Barker affair is hardly the first.
Among others, three years ago, England was rocked by the smarmy tale of 12 year old Alfie Patten impregnating 15 year old Chantelle Steadman. Chantelle’s mum was fully aware they were sleeping together–in her home. As things turned out, a slew of other boys were sharing Chantelle and Alfie wasn’t the father. See “Alfie Updated,” http://bit.ly/AnDvMo.
As of now, it seems Barker’s solicitors will go for a semi-insanity defense, claiming the defendant is autistic and “a very lonely character.” The judge thinks she’s “manipulative and mean.” Whatever she is, she is facing two years in prison.
Even more bizarre is the matter of “Sasha,” who Moonbattery.com aptly surmises “will eventually put a psychiatrist’s kids through college.” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12190.)
Rep. Allen West, American Hero
Rep. Allen West, American Hero
Allen Bernard West was a virtual unknown entity outside the U.S. Army before he burst on the political scene in the Republican rout of 2010 when he was elected the first GOP African-American congressman from Florida in 134 years.
West is also an un-sung American hero.
Although I had read Rep. West was a conservative and Tea Party supporter, I hadn’t known anything about his military record or his outspoken and heroic sense of patriotism until recently.
The 50 year old West, who followed generations of his family in joining the Army in 1983, served for 21 years in the 325th Airborne Battalion Combat Team, the 377th Field Artillery Regiment, and the First Infantry Division among other posts, saw action in both Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and retired as a lieutenant colonel in 2004.
Those achievements alone command the respect and admiration of every American. On the other hand, the incident that led to his forced retirement deserves exposure as an example of our military’s official gutlessness and ignorance in conducting a war.
LTC West was relieved of his command after he was accused of assaulting an Iraqi prisoner in Taji suspected of plotting to ambush his men.
During intense combat, a few of those men under West’s command were captured and one suspected insurgent was also captured.
With the lives of American soldiers in danger and knowing what Iraqis customarily did to captives, when our interrogators were getting nowhere in locating the American prisoners, West forcefully demanded the Iraqi reveal the location of his soldiers. When he still refused, West placed his pistol near the prisoner’s crotch, fired, and advised him the next shot wouldn’t miss.
Evidently not as dumb as he looked and hoping to procreate more jihadists, the prisoner spilled his guts, the Americans were rescued, a jihadist-sympathizer alleged Lieutenant Colonel West had been guilty of misconduct, and the Army drummed him out.
Not the jihadist-sympathizer, LTC West. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12222.)
Allen Bernard West was a virtual unknown entity outside the U.S. Army before he burst on the political scene in the Republican rout of 2010 when he was elected the first GOP African-American congressman from Florida in 134 years.
West is also an un-sung American hero.
Although I had read Rep. West was a conservative and Tea Party supporter, I hadn’t known anything about his military record or his outspoken and heroic sense of patriotism until recently.
The 50 year old West, who followed generations of his family in joining the Army in 1983, served for 21 years in the 325th Airborne Battalion Combat Team, the 377th Field Artillery Regiment, and the First Infantry Division among other posts, saw action in both Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and retired as a lieutenant colonel in 2004.
Those achievements alone command the respect and admiration of every American. On the other hand, the incident that led to his forced retirement deserves exposure as an example of our military’s official gutlessness and ignorance in conducting a war.
LTC West was relieved of his command after he was accused of assaulting an Iraqi prisoner in Taji suspected of plotting to ambush his men.
During intense combat, a few of those men under West’s command were captured and one suspected insurgent was also captured.
With the lives of American soldiers in danger and knowing what Iraqis customarily did to captives, when our interrogators were getting nowhere in locating the American prisoners, West forcefully demanded the Iraqi reveal the location of his soldiers. When he still refused, West placed his pistol near the prisoner’s crotch, fired, and advised him the next shot wouldn’t miss.
Evidently not as dumb as he looked and hoping to procreate more jihadists, the prisoner spilled his guts, the Americans were rescued, a jihadist-sympathizer alleged Lieutenant Colonel West had been guilty of misconduct, and the Army drummed him out.
Not the jihadist-sympathizer, LTC West. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12222.)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Teacher Unions vs Education Vouchers, Home-Schooling, and Charter Schools
Teacher Unions vs Education Vouchers, Home-Schooling, and Charter Schools
Forty years ago, a debate raged among public school teachers in New York State over the question of whether to affiliate themselves with labor unions.
The debate essentially centered on the issue of whether teaching was a profession or a trade. A compromise was reached with a semantical subterfuge when many teachers opted to continue calling their locals “federations” or “associations,” thereby retaining the illusion of professionalism, and joined the New York State United Teachers, “a union of professionals.”
Forty years ago, the American public education system produced graduates who could read, write, cipher, and think. Granted, we didn’t accomplish those goals as well as our forebears had but they didn’t have to compete with television and cultural and sexual revolutions. Still, we did a pretty damned good job–as contrasted with educators today.
Was the unionization of education the only cause in education’s transparent decline?
Not at all. Many teachers were already members of de facto unions which represented them in the same way they are represented today. Also, there are various outside influences on kids today which were present forty years ago but which hadn’t yet fully blossomed into the negative forces they are now.
And cell phones, iphones, Blackberries, smart phones, personal computers, and the Intenet didn’t exist.
Are teacher labor unions necessarily a bad thing? Again, not at all.
Teachers have greatly benefitted from the powerful clout of statewide and nationwide affiliations and school budgets have ballooned. They are not necessarily a bad thing, unless union extremism as seen in teacher participation in last spring’s riots in Wisconsin and the hardships inflicted on taxpayers by those balloons are factored in.
As a desperate response to failing public school systems often more intent on propagandizing than teaching, parents have resorted to a unique alternative, homeschooling their kids.
Teacher unions and their elected officials have fought tooth and nail against that desperation. Home-based learning effectively served as a denunciation of the inefficacy and the misguided values inculcated in public schools so what else could they do?
Education vouchers allowing parents to shop for the best elementary and secondary schools for their children represented an even greater threat to entrenched union interests and they, too, have been resisted as if they were a creation of the devil.
After all, if parents were permitted to pick and choose, they wouldn’t choose failing schools and would therefore put pressure on districts to compete by raising their level of instruction and discipline and to return to their fundamental pedagogical mission.
Both home schooling and education vouchers undermine America’s public education system and that’s not a bad thing either in light of the fact that system isn’t educating very well.
Another alternative to sending children to public schools that provide, at best, a babysitting service has sprung up in the past two decades: charter schools. If vouchers are the creation of some devil to teacher unions, charter schools must be the creation of Lucifer himself. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12206.)
Forty years ago, a debate raged among public school teachers in New York State over the question of whether to affiliate themselves with labor unions.
The debate essentially centered on the issue of whether teaching was a profession or a trade. A compromise was reached with a semantical subterfuge when many teachers opted to continue calling their locals “federations” or “associations,” thereby retaining the illusion of professionalism, and joined the New York State United Teachers, “a union of professionals.”
Forty years ago, the American public education system produced graduates who could read, write, cipher, and think. Granted, we didn’t accomplish those goals as well as our forebears had but they didn’t have to compete with television and cultural and sexual revolutions. Still, we did a pretty damned good job–as contrasted with educators today.
Was the unionization of education the only cause in education’s transparent decline?
Not at all. Many teachers were already members of de facto unions which represented them in the same way they are represented today. Also, there are various outside influences on kids today which were present forty years ago but which hadn’t yet fully blossomed into the negative forces they are now.
And cell phones, iphones, Blackberries, smart phones, personal computers, and the Intenet didn’t exist.
Are teacher labor unions necessarily a bad thing? Again, not at all.
Teachers have greatly benefitted from the powerful clout of statewide and nationwide affiliations and school budgets have ballooned. They are not necessarily a bad thing, unless union extremism as seen in teacher participation in last spring’s riots in Wisconsin and the hardships inflicted on taxpayers by those balloons are factored in.
As a desperate response to failing public school systems often more intent on propagandizing than teaching, parents have resorted to a unique alternative, homeschooling their kids.
Teacher unions and their elected officials have fought tooth and nail against that desperation. Home-based learning effectively served as a denunciation of the inefficacy and the misguided values inculcated in public schools so what else could they do?
Education vouchers allowing parents to shop for the best elementary and secondary schools for their children represented an even greater threat to entrenched union interests and they, too, have been resisted as if they were a creation of the devil.
After all, if parents were permitted to pick and choose, they wouldn’t choose failing schools and would therefore put pressure on districts to compete by raising their level of instruction and discipline and to return to their fundamental pedagogical mission.
Both home schooling and education vouchers undermine America’s public education system and that’s not a bad thing either in light of the fact that system isn’t educating very well.
Another alternative to sending children to public schools that provide, at best, a babysitting service has sprung up in the past two decades: charter schools. If vouchers are the creation of some devil to teacher unions, charter schools must be the creation of Lucifer himself. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12206.)
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Animals in the News, Part Two: Human Animals
Animals in the News, Part Two: Human Animals
Part One of this 2-part series recounted three stories of what most people consider animals: rats infesting the D.C. Occupy encampment, pit bulls chewing off a man’s foot in Chicago, and a pet cat almost killing a Buenos Aires woman when it was tossed out of a fourth-floor window.
As unsettling as those stories are, there is another animal far more capable of arousing disgust, inflicting pain, and causing havoc than rats, dogs, or cats. Of the phylum Chordata, class mammalia, order primate, family Hominidae, sub-family Homininae, tribe Hominini, genus Homo, it’s most commonly known as Homo Sapiens.
As Part One concluded, human beings can act more animalistically than technically-lower species.
Of course, since those lower species never wage mass warfare–except maybe in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”–some would argue that conducting war is irrefutable evidence of the human animal’s capacity to far exceed any other species’ devastation and carnage, an argument that has some merit.
Also worth consideration as evidencing the brutality of Homo Sapiens are the 50 to 60 million “legal” abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court decided on January 22nd, 1973 that human life was no longer sacred. Roe v. Wade has accounted for a far greater loss of life than all our wars combined and vivid testimony to man’s inhumanity to man.
However, let’s focus on a few less-profound yet equally-nauseating instances of man’s, and woman’s, animalistic inhumanity toward its own kind.
“Animalistic” may be a misnomer, though, because animals are programmed to protect their young. True, some eat their offspring when they’re starving and most abandon them when they are beyond survivability but none ever get drunk and leave them shivering in the cold while their mother goes to Mickey D’s.
Thirty-nine year old Farris Martin, allegedly, did just that in Sacramento, California to her nine and four year old children. Her kids were found huddling for warmth in the bushes as Ms. Martin was scarfing down McDonalds’ delectibles.
Martin was arrested on a felony charge of endangering the life or health of a child, is being held on $60,000 bail, and the kids are now hopefully warm and well-fed.
One example, or a thousand examples, of human neglect of common decency does not condemn our species to Hell but it sure helps. So, too, do glaring instances of convicted criminals using America’s benevolent court system to make a farce of justice not make us animals but they come close.
Four years ago, David Belniak pled guilty in Florida to committing DUI manslaughter . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12196.)
Part One of this 2-part series recounted three stories of what most people consider animals: rats infesting the D.C. Occupy encampment, pit bulls chewing off a man’s foot in Chicago, and a pet cat almost killing a Buenos Aires woman when it was tossed out of a fourth-floor window.
As unsettling as those stories are, there is another animal far more capable of arousing disgust, inflicting pain, and causing havoc than rats, dogs, or cats. Of the phylum Chordata, class mammalia, order primate, family Hominidae, sub-family Homininae, tribe Hominini, genus Homo, it’s most commonly known as Homo Sapiens.
As Part One concluded, human beings can act more animalistically than technically-lower species.
Of course, since those lower species never wage mass warfare–except maybe in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”–some would argue that conducting war is irrefutable evidence of the human animal’s capacity to far exceed any other species’ devastation and carnage, an argument that has some merit.
Also worth consideration as evidencing the brutality of Homo Sapiens are the 50 to 60 million “legal” abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court decided on January 22nd, 1973 that human life was no longer sacred. Roe v. Wade has accounted for a far greater loss of life than all our wars combined and vivid testimony to man’s inhumanity to man.
However, let’s focus on a few less-profound yet equally-nauseating instances of man’s, and woman’s, animalistic inhumanity toward its own kind.
“Animalistic” may be a misnomer, though, because animals are programmed to protect their young. True, some eat their offspring when they’re starving and most abandon them when they are beyond survivability but none ever get drunk and leave them shivering in the cold while their mother goes to Mickey D’s.
Thirty-nine year old Farris Martin, allegedly, did just that in Sacramento, California to her nine and four year old children. Her kids were found huddling for warmth in the bushes as Ms. Martin was scarfing down McDonalds’ delectibles.
Martin was arrested on a felony charge of endangering the life or health of a child, is being held on $60,000 bail, and the kids are now hopefully warm and well-fed.
One example, or a thousand examples, of human neglect of common decency does not condemn our species to Hell but it sure helps. So, too, do glaring instances of convicted criminals using America’s benevolent court system to make a farce of justice not make us animals but they come close.
Four years ago, David Belniak pled guilty in Florida to committing DUI manslaughter . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12196.)
Friday, January 20, 2012
Animals in the News, Part One: Animal-Animals
Animals in the News, Part One: Animal-Animals
The cynical comedian W.C. Fields famously said, “Anyone who hates children and animals can’t be all bad.” Whether Fields was serious or not is debatable since he often performed with both children and animals and he financially supported his two sons even when he didn’t have to.
The point is that children and animals aren’t all that bad even though both can be difficult at times and even if both can turn vicious. Kids aren’t the subject of this piece, though; animals of various stripes are.
In the nation’s capital, so-called Occupiers have become a problem as they have wherever they’ve moved in. Newt Gingrich advised them a while ago to get a job and take a bath but they’ve done neither. What they have done in D.C. and elsewhere is create a sanitation hazard by breeding rats.
There are various kinds of rats in Washington but here I refer to the 4-legged kind infesting Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square, not the human vermin.
In what must be a PETA-inspired decision, D.C. health officials plan to pack the rats off to neighboring Virginia rather than exterminating them which would make more sense, except to the officials. To show their concern for family values, the braindead Washingtonians are also insisting on the impossible, capturing and exporting the rodents with their little rat families.
At least that’s the interpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who thinks the law is “crazier than fiction.” Gene Harrington, Director of the National Pest Management Association concurs saying, “Basically, federal and local government regulations have tied legal District rodent control practices in knots and made the management of such a problem much more complicated than it should be."
It’s all par for the course when governmental functionaries pretend they know what they’re doing.
There are other animal stories in the news, not ridiculous stories like that of the D.C. rats but, instead, gory and tragic. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12166.)
The cynical comedian W.C. Fields famously said, “Anyone who hates children and animals can’t be all bad.” Whether Fields was serious or not is debatable since he often performed with both children and animals and he financially supported his two sons even when he didn’t have to.
The point is that children and animals aren’t all that bad even though both can be difficult at times and even if both can turn vicious. Kids aren’t the subject of this piece, though; animals of various stripes are.
In the nation’s capital, so-called Occupiers have become a problem as they have wherever they’ve moved in. Newt Gingrich advised them a while ago to get a job and take a bath but they’ve done neither. What they have done in D.C. and elsewhere is create a sanitation hazard by breeding rats.
There are various kinds of rats in Washington but here I refer to the 4-legged kind infesting Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square, not the human vermin.
In what must be a PETA-inspired decision, D.C. health officials plan to pack the rats off to neighboring Virginia rather than exterminating them which would make more sense, except to the officials. To show their concern for family values, the braindead Washingtonians are also insisting on the impossible, capturing and exporting the rodents with their little rat families.
At least that’s the interpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010 by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who thinks the law is “crazier than fiction.” Gene Harrington, Director of the National Pest Management Association concurs saying, “Basically, federal and local government regulations have tied legal District rodent control practices in knots and made the management of such a problem much more complicated than it should be."
It’s all par for the course when governmental functionaries pretend they know what they’re doing.
There are other animal stories in the news, not ridiculous stories like that of the D.C. rats but, instead, gory and tragic. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12166.)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Vote Early and Often!
Vote Early and Often!
The City of the Big Shoulders didn’t originate the idea of voting early and often, that is, subverting the electoral process by voters assuming false identities and casting numerous ballots to inflate final election tallies to help insure the Democrat candidates’ victories, but the Windy City perfected the scam.
Fifty-two years ago, Democrat Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago succeeded in electing John F. Kennedy president of the United States with the help of thousands of dead people who amazingly found their way to the polls to vote for Jack and every other Democrat on the ballot.
This is not to suggest dirty politics is a phenomenon confined to the Democrat Party nor that it began in the twentieth century.
Dick Nixon is up there with the best in the dirty pantheon although, to his credit, he chose not to precipitate a constitutional crisis by challenging the 1960 election results and some have suggested that even Thomas Jefferson circulated incriminating pamphlets to trash his political opponents.
Being devious by nature, politicians have historically used other underhanded, unethical, and technically illegal electoral tricks of the trade including forgery, slander, libel, and payoffs to supplement ballot stuffing and elect their favorites, rarely resulting in legal consequences since the opponents had lost and authorities weren’t much interested in pursuing the guilty.
Even more rare is a pol not only admitting to voter fraud but brazenly claiming the practice is ”a normal political tactic” employed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Taking their cues from Chicago, Troy, New York Democrats Anthony Renna, already found guilty of second-degree forgery, and Anthony DeFiglio, found guilty of falsifying business records, are now accused of ballot fraud but claiming, ”Voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections, and faking absentee ballots was commonplace.”
Despite the fact there is no evidence that Troy Republicans have been engaged in any fraud, Renna and DeFiglio are obviously arguing that their conduct is defensible on the basis that besmirching the opposition will exonerate them.
And I always thought the childish defense of, “Mom! Everyone is doing it!” expired with puberty.
Notwithstanding that two of their fellow Democrats have pled guilty and that a total of eight Democrats have been indicted in the case centering around alleged fraudulent attempts to get Democrat candidates on the ballot for the Working Families Party, the WFP, in 2009, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12186.)
The City of the Big Shoulders didn’t originate the idea of voting early and often, that is, subverting the electoral process by voters assuming false identities and casting numerous ballots to inflate final election tallies to help insure the Democrat candidates’ victories, but the Windy City perfected the scam.
Fifty-two years ago, Democrat Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago succeeded in electing John F. Kennedy president of the United States with the help of thousands of dead people who amazingly found their way to the polls to vote for Jack and every other Democrat on the ballot.
This is not to suggest dirty politics is a phenomenon confined to the Democrat Party nor that it began in the twentieth century.
Dick Nixon is up there with the best in the dirty pantheon although, to his credit, he chose not to precipitate a constitutional crisis by challenging the 1960 election results and some have suggested that even Thomas Jefferson circulated incriminating pamphlets to trash his political opponents.
Being devious by nature, politicians have historically used other underhanded, unethical, and technically illegal electoral tricks of the trade including forgery, slander, libel, and payoffs to supplement ballot stuffing and elect their favorites, rarely resulting in legal consequences since the opponents had lost and authorities weren’t much interested in pursuing the guilty.
Even more rare is a pol not only admitting to voter fraud but brazenly claiming the practice is ”a normal political tactic” employed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Taking their cues from Chicago, Troy, New York Democrats Anthony Renna, already found guilty of second-degree forgery, and Anthony DeFiglio, found guilty of falsifying business records, are now accused of ballot fraud but claiming, ”Voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections, and faking absentee ballots was commonplace.”
Despite the fact there is no evidence that Troy Republicans have been engaged in any fraud, Renna and DeFiglio are obviously arguing that their conduct is defensible on the basis that besmirching the opposition will exonerate them.
And I always thought the childish defense of, “Mom! Everyone is doing it!” expired with puberty.
Notwithstanding that two of their fellow Democrats have pled guilty and that a total of eight Democrats have been indicted in the case centering around alleged fraudulent attempts to get Democrat candidates on the ballot for the Working Families Party, the WFP, in 2009, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12186.)
When the Bullied Become the Bulliers
When the Bullied Become the Bulliers
Bullying in schools, a problem as old as schools, has become the most grievous sin that could be committed, worse than cheating on tests, fighting, and engaging in illicit acts, all of which commonly occur.
Teachers seducing students still ranks higher on the serious scale but bullying is now considered the most damnable offense a student can commit, so vile that the bullied are now being allowed the right to bully as reparation.
The anti-bullying campaign in America has been fostered by no less than the president of the United States and his wife who warned of the destructive consequences of bullying and co-hosted a White House Conference on Bullying Prevention last year.
There have been no White House conferences on the subject of the dire state of American education so, obviously, bullying is a far more critical concern.
Obviously, too, the administration is more concerned over a particular type of bullying than about bullying in general, about geeks being stuffed into lockers or jocks intimidating nerds. The tip-off as to the gay focus of Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign was his bizarre appointment of a homosexual activist and facilitator of child sexual predation, Kevin Jennings, as his “safe schools czar.”
(See “Kevin Jennings and ‘Safe Schools,’ ” http://bit.ly/pcAMPH, and “School Gays Are Busting Out All Over,” http://bit.ly/A7QZTB.)
Bullying has now come full circle as the subjects of Obama and Jennings’ safety have developed into the bulliers.
Public school administrators, never known for their courage or intellect–most went into administration because they couldn’t teach–have been quick to endorse and enforce NEA and Obamian dictates on bullying since to do otherwise would threaten their sinecures.
As a result, we have witnessed countless instances of schools enforcing so-called zero tolerance when it comes to assumed intolerance toward gay students and boundless tolerance of a politically-correct tyrrany by the assumed oppressed.
The latest absurdity happened at Shawano High School in Wisconsin. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12177.)
Bullying in schools, a problem as old as schools, has become the most grievous sin that could be committed, worse than cheating on tests, fighting, and engaging in illicit acts, all of which commonly occur.
Teachers seducing students still ranks higher on the serious scale but bullying is now considered the most damnable offense a student can commit, so vile that the bullied are now being allowed the right to bully as reparation.
The anti-bullying campaign in America has been fostered by no less than the president of the United States and his wife who warned of the destructive consequences of bullying and co-hosted a White House Conference on Bullying Prevention last year.
There have been no White House conferences on the subject of the dire state of American education so, obviously, bullying is a far more critical concern.
Obviously, too, the administration is more concerned over a particular type of bullying than about bullying in general, about geeks being stuffed into lockers or jocks intimidating nerds. The tip-off as to the gay focus of Barack Hussein Obama’s campaign was his bizarre appointment of a homosexual activist and facilitator of child sexual predation, Kevin Jennings, as his “safe schools czar.”
(See “Kevin Jennings and ‘Safe Schools,’ ” http://bit.ly/pcAMPH, and “School Gays Are Busting Out All Over,” http://bit.ly/A7QZTB.)
Bullying has now come full circle as the subjects of Obama and Jennings’ safety have developed into the bulliers.
Public school administrators, never known for their courage or intellect–most went into administration because they couldn’t teach–have been quick to endorse and enforce NEA and Obamian dictates on bullying since to do otherwise would threaten their sinecures.
As a result, we have witnessed countless instances of schools enforcing so-called zero tolerance when it comes to assumed intolerance toward gay students and boundless tolerance of a politically-correct tyrrany by the assumed oppressed.
The latest absurdity happened at Shawano High School in Wisconsin. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12177.)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Dumb and Dumber: Newsweek and Andrew Sullivan
Dumb and Dumber: Newsweek and Andrew Sullivan
It may be childish and immature to call someone or some groups dumb although most of us, myself included, have hurled the dumb epithet at one time or another. Personally, lately I've mainly confined my allegations of dumb, stupid, inept, incompetent, etc. to politicians and their lackeys and always with bases in fact.
It’s one thing in casual conversation to call someone or some group dumb when they have acted or spokenly stupidly–Barack Hussein Obama and the Occupy Wall Streeters come to mind. It’s quite another when a formerly-respected journalist and national periodical label an entire political movement “stupid.”
The author of the "stupid" label in this week's Newsweek, which the magazine changed to "dumb" in its headline, was Andrew Sullivan, the conservative turncoat and exceptionally hate-filled homosexual and unabashed Obama-idolator known for his vituperative language. Sullivan is known, too, for his committment to the hackneyed Blame-Bush ruse, pinning all this president's failures on the previous administration.
Still, for Newsweek to publish its weekly featuring the headline, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" subtitled, "Andrew Sullivan on the Man with a Plan," is so far beyond the propriety pale that it suggests Sullivan has succumbed to dementia and that one of Obama's prime MSM publications has succumbed to bankruptcy and doesn't give a rat's ass what the public thinks of it.
Actually, Sullivan's dementia speaks for itself and Newsweek is on the verge of going belly-up. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12154.)
It may be childish and immature to call someone or some groups dumb although most of us, myself included, have hurled the dumb epithet at one time or another. Personally, lately I've mainly confined my allegations of dumb, stupid, inept, incompetent, etc. to politicians and their lackeys and always with bases in fact.
It’s one thing in casual conversation to call someone or some group dumb when they have acted or spokenly stupidly–Barack Hussein Obama and the Occupy Wall Streeters come to mind. It’s quite another when a formerly-respected journalist and national periodical label an entire political movement “stupid.”
The author of the "stupid" label in this week's Newsweek, which the magazine changed to "dumb" in its headline, was Andrew Sullivan, the conservative turncoat and exceptionally hate-filled homosexual and unabashed Obama-idolator known for his vituperative language. Sullivan is known, too, for his committment to the hackneyed Blame-Bush ruse, pinning all this president's failures on the previous administration.
Still, for Newsweek to publish its weekly featuring the headline, "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" subtitled, "Andrew Sullivan on the Man with a Plan," is so far beyond the propriety pale that it suggests Sullivan has succumbed to dementia and that one of Obama's prime MSM publications has succumbed to bankruptcy and doesn't give a rat's ass what the public thinks of it.
Actually, Sullivan's dementia speaks for itself and Newsweek is on the verge of going belly-up. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12154.)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Cancer Sucks!
Cancer Sucks!
Saying “Cancer sucks!” is no great revelation to those stricken with that insidious disease or to family members and friends of the afflicted but it truly does suck.
One of the worst things about cancer–aside from the obvious–are the long-extant rumors that cures are available and that researchers and pharmaceutical companies prefer to conceal them since continuing the quest for cures and supplying over-priced drugs are such lucrative enterprises.
It’s the old, “If we can put men on the moon, why can’t we cure cancer?” question, a good and valid question best refuted by the facts that everyone from scientists to pharma execs–to Joe Blow and his family–are and can become victims of the BIG C.
Back when I was a kid during the Dark Ages of the 1950′s, we didn’t hear much about cancer. Most often we heard only shocked statements like, “They opened him up and it was all over his insides so they just closed him up,” and “he” soon died. No commentary on treatments, no praise of cures, not even miraculous interventions.
“He” or ”She” just died.
Today, things are different, very different, thanks mainly to the medical free enterprise system in which doctors and medical scientists haven’t been burdened, until lately, with government restrictions and inhibitions, free to develop innovative treatments, procedures, remedies, and cures.
I won’t vouch for an attack of conscience on the parts of cancer researchers or execs at Big Pharm but cancer treatments, ameliorative procedures, and successful cures are now widely available and effective. They’re not 100%guaranteed, but what is?
Come full implementation of Obamacare in 2014 when America fully commits to the model for our health care, Britain’s National Health Service, which picks and chooses who should live and who should die and save some money because hospital beds and doctors–and interest in preserving life–are in short supply, medical advances may come to a screeching halt.
Barack Obama and his fellow Obamians have used the unsettling image of “pulling the plug on grandma” as a tool to reduce protestors of Obamacare to the level of uninformed absurdists at the same time they know full well that not only will grandma’s plug be yanked but her hospital bed will be vacated before she is cold to make way for the next victim.
The best bet for grannie and anyone else afflicted with serious illnesses is to find cures for as many afflictions as possible before Obamacare kicks in and effectively says, Don’t bother.
Toward the end of curing one of the most pervasive and pernicious forms of cancer is to Think Pink Rocks.
Think Pink Rocks is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness of the necessity for early and genetic testing for breast cancer research and funding breast cancer screening, treatment, and research.
New York City’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Research Center, the American Cancer Society, The H.O.P.E. Project, and other worthy charities have partnered with and benefitted from TPR’s various activities.
Those activities have included a Designer Clothes Charity Drive, a concert at the Mizner Amphitheater in Boca Raton, and an anticipated large sponsorship for the upcoming NYC Half Marathon, the NYC Half 2012, on March 18th.
This year, all proceeds from TPR’s NYC Half 2012 will be donated to Memorial Sloan-Kettering for breast cancer research.
See the Think Pink Rocks website here http://www.thinkpinkrocks.com/ and consider donating much-needed contributions in any amount for a very worthwhile cause.
The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether Obamacare is constitutional. By supporting Think Pink Rocks, Americans can decide whether TPR continues to help cancer victims.
Saying “Cancer sucks!” is no great revelation to those stricken with that insidious disease or to family members and friends of the afflicted but it truly does suck.
One of the worst things about cancer–aside from the obvious–are the long-extant rumors that cures are available and that researchers and pharmaceutical companies prefer to conceal them since continuing the quest for cures and supplying over-priced drugs are such lucrative enterprises.
It’s the old, “If we can put men on the moon, why can’t we cure cancer?” question, a good and valid question best refuted by the facts that everyone from scientists to pharma execs–to Joe Blow and his family–are and can become victims of the BIG C.
Back when I was a kid during the Dark Ages of the 1950′s, we didn’t hear much about cancer. Most often we heard only shocked statements like, “They opened him up and it was all over his insides so they just closed him up,” and “he” soon died. No commentary on treatments, no praise of cures, not even miraculous interventions.
“He” or ”She” just died.
Today, things are different, very different, thanks mainly to the medical free enterprise system in which doctors and medical scientists haven’t been burdened, until lately, with government restrictions and inhibitions, free to develop innovative treatments, procedures, remedies, and cures.
I won’t vouch for an attack of conscience on the parts of cancer researchers or execs at Big Pharm but cancer treatments, ameliorative procedures, and successful cures are now widely available and effective. They’re not 100%guaranteed, but what is?
Come full implementation of Obamacare in 2014 when America fully commits to the model for our health care, Britain’s National Health Service, which picks and chooses who should live and who should die and save some money because hospital beds and doctors–and interest in preserving life–are in short supply, medical advances may come to a screeching halt.
Barack Obama and his fellow Obamians have used the unsettling image of “pulling the plug on grandma” as a tool to reduce protestors of Obamacare to the level of uninformed absurdists at the same time they know full well that not only will grandma’s plug be yanked but her hospital bed will be vacated before she is cold to make way for the next victim.
The best bet for grannie and anyone else afflicted with serious illnesses is to find cures for as many afflictions as possible before Obamacare kicks in and effectively says, Don’t bother.
Toward the end of curing one of the most pervasive and pernicious forms of cancer is to Think Pink Rocks.
Think Pink Rocks is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising awareness of the necessity for early and genetic testing for breast cancer research and funding breast cancer screening, treatment, and research.
New York City’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Research Center, the American Cancer Society, The H.O.P.E. Project, and other worthy charities have partnered with and benefitted from TPR’s various activities.
Those activities have included a Designer Clothes Charity Drive, a concert at the Mizner Amphitheater in Boca Raton, and an anticipated large sponsorship for the upcoming NYC Half Marathon, the NYC Half 2012, on March 18th.
This year, all proceeds from TPR’s NYC Half 2012 will be donated to Memorial Sloan-Kettering for breast cancer research.
See the Think Pink Rocks website here http://www.thinkpinkrocks.com/ and consider donating much-needed contributions in any amount for a very worthwhile cause.
The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether Obamacare is constitutional. By supporting Think Pink Rocks, Americans can decide whether TPR continues to help cancer victims.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Race Card, the Race Pot, and the Race for the Presidency
The Race Card, the Race Pot, and the Race for the Presidency
Many millions of Americans assumed the race issue in this country was finally behind us after the election of the nation’s first black president in 2008.
After all, Barack Hussein Obama suggested as much, voters had expiated their baseless white guilt over slavery by voting for a black man, and African-Americans were elated over their achievement in nominating and electing, as my Irish mother would say, “one of their own.”
It was widely hoped that America had entered a new era of racial harmony with Obama’s inauguration.
Guess what? We didn’t and, in fact, race relations are far worse now than they had been in many decades and for a very good reason: The Obamas themselves continue to stir the race pot in order to keep it boiling through November and beyond.
Stirring, stirring, stirring.
Instead of attempting to fulfill his pledge to minimize the differences between people, to emphasize that the content of one’s character and not the color of one’s skin is what matters most, the president accents our differences by playing the always-electorally-potent race card.
What matters most to Obama is getting re-elected at any cost.
As he said last week at a D.C. fundraiser, “The very core of what this country stands for is on the line–the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try.”
That idea of appearances over substance reiterated what Obama said to Latinos in October: “I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.”
No slouch when it comes to racial pot-stirring, the not “angry black woman” Michelle Obama asked a rhetorical question at yet another fundraiser: ”Will we give every child–every child–a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, or what she looks like?” (http://bit.ly/xyk6Up)
Could the theme of what we “look like” be code for race? Do bears defecate in the woods?
Regardless of where bears do their business, race agitator Rev. Al Sharpton now does his on MSNBC and never misses a chance to stir the pot, toss some incendiary racial ingredient into it, or make certain one of his talk show guests does.
South Carolina Democrat Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian served that function in a discussion on the election in which Harpootlian managed to link Monday’s Republican debate in South Carolina with racism, states’ rights, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the election of 1860–all within less than two minutes.
Harpootlian demonstrated his short memory by forgetting his Democrats debated on MLK Day 20008 and the dearth of his historical expertise when he said Lincoln signed the Emancipation Declaration in 1860–when the Civil War hadn’t even begun. Sharpton and his fellow black commentator Melissa Harris-Perry took it from there and lambasted Republicans for virtually desecrating MLK Day by debating as evidence of their innate racism. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12148.)
Many millions of Americans assumed the race issue in this country was finally behind us after the election of the nation’s first black president in 2008.
After all, Barack Hussein Obama suggested as much, voters had expiated their baseless white guilt over slavery by voting for a black man, and African-Americans were elated over their achievement in nominating and electing, as my Irish mother would say, “one of their own.”
It was widely hoped that America had entered a new era of racial harmony with Obama’s inauguration.
Guess what? We didn’t and, in fact, race relations are far worse now than they had been in many decades and for a very good reason: The Obamas themselves continue to stir the race pot in order to keep it boiling through November and beyond.
Stirring, stirring, stirring.
Instead of attempting to fulfill his pledge to minimize the differences between people, to emphasize that the content of one’s character and not the color of one’s skin is what matters most, the president accents our differences by playing the always-electorally-potent race card.
What matters most to Obama is getting re-elected at any cost.
As he said last week at a D.C. fundraiser, “The very core of what this country stands for is on the line–the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try.”
That idea of appearances over substance reiterated what Obama said to Latinos in October: “I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.”
No slouch when it comes to racial pot-stirring, the not “angry black woman” Michelle Obama asked a rhetorical question at yet another fundraiser: ”Will we give every child–every child–a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, or what she looks like?” (http://bit.ly/xyk6Up)
Could the theme of what we “look like” be code for race? Do bears defecate in the woods?
Regardless of where bears do their business, race agitator Rev. Al Sharpton now does his on MSNBC and never misses a chance to stir the pot, toss some incendiary racial ingredient into it, or make certain one of his talk show guests does.
South Carolina Democrat Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian served that function in a discussion on the election in which Harpootlian managed to link Monday’s Republican debate in South Carolina with racism, states’ rights, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the election of 1860–all within less than two minutes.
Harpootlian demonstrated his short memory by forgetting his Democrats debated on MLK Day 20008 and the dearth of his historical expertise when he said Lincoln signed the Emancipation Declaration in 1860–when the Civil War hadn’t even begun. Sharpton and his fellow black commentator Melissa Harris-Perry took it from there and lambasted Republicans for virtually desecrating MLK Day by debating as evidence of their innate racism. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12148.)
Proof that Educated, Classless People Can Become President
Proof that Educated, Classless People Can Become President
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t stipulate that a president has to give a damn for and understand his country, be honest with voters, or have more class than an Occupy Wall Streeter.
College and law school grad, Chicago community organizer, absentee Illinois state senator, constitutional scholar, brief United States senator, current commander-in-chief of our armed forces, and leader of the Free World, Barack Hussein Obama, is devoid of any of those attributes.
He has been acclaimed as the most brilliant chief executive to ever establish residence in the White House despite the fact he is frequently reduced to a gaffe-prone, inarticulate gasbag when his trusty teleprompters aren’t around and he considers it panache to discuss dog droppings.
Go figure.
President George W. Bush was also known to put his foot in his mouth and his “Bushisms” are still lame comic fodder for Leno and Letterman but Bush’s gaffes don’t compare with Obama’s.
Leno, Letterman, and their liberal coterie dare not ridicule The Anointed One, the man Michelle Malkin aptly labeled “the Gaffe Machine” and whose mainstream media customarily ignores or soon buries Obama’s factual mistakes, dumb solecisms, and expressions of outright ignorance.
The president’s frequent excursions into foolery and foolishness have often been documented here and in the rest of the conservative blogosphere even if the MSM pretends they never happened.
There is no need to elaborate on Obama’s 57 states, his reference to “corpsemen,” his inability to speak Austrian, his confusing Jews with janitors and living versus dead Medal of Honors winners, his “intellectual stammering,” or the whole host of his other foul-ups.
They have become the stuff of legend, legendary gaffery which future liberal historians will someday discover and dismiss as vile, misleading partisan claptrap just as Mrs. Obama has dismissed the unflattering revelations of Jodi Kantor in The Obamas.
Two new examples of “misleading partisan claptrap” have recently emerged.
Neither is of monumental significance in the greater scheme of presidential politics although both provide great insight into our beloved leader.
One reveals a heretofore-unknown and shocking facet of Barack Obama’s life, the other displays what most Obamian critics have long known–that he sorely lacks both discretion and class.
The American public has been misled as to the extent of the Obama family. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12142.)
Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t stipulate that a president has to give a damn for and understand his country, be honest with voters, or have more class than an Occupy Wall Streeter.
College and law school grad, Chicago community organizer, absentee Illinois state senator, constitutional scholar, brief United States senator, current commander-in-chief of our armed forces, and leader of the Free World, Barack Hussein Obama, is devoid of any of those attributes.
He has been acclaimed as the most brilliant chief executive to ever establish residence in the White House despite the fact he is frequently reduced to a gaffe-prone, inarticulate gasbag when his trusty teleprompters aren’t around and he considers it panache to discuss dog droppings.
Go figure.
President George W. Bush was also known to put his foot in his mouth and his “Bushisms” are still lame comic fodder for Leno and Letterman but Bush’s gaffes don’t compare with Obama’s.
Leno, Letterman, and their liberal coterie dare not ridicule The Anointed One, the man Michelle Malkin aptly labeled “the Gaffe Machine” and whose mainstream media customarily ignores or soon buries Obama’s factual mistakes, dumb solecisms, and expressions of outright ignorance.
The president’s frequent excursions into foolery and foolishness have often been documented here and in the rest of the conservative blogosphere even if the MSM pretends they never happened.
There is no need to elaborate on Obama’s 57 states, his reference to “corpsemen,” his inability to speak Austrian, his confusing Jews with janitors and living versus dead Medal of Honors winners, his “intellectual stammering,” or the whole host of his other foul-ups.
They have become the stuff of legend, legendary gaffery which future liberal historians will someday discover and dismiss as vile, misleading partisan claptrap just as Mrs. Obama has dismissed the unflattering revelations of Jodi Kantor in The Obamas.
Two new examples of “misleading partisan claptrap” have recently emerged.
Neither is of monumental significance in the greater scheme of presidential politics although both provide great insight into our beloved leader.
One reveals a heretofore-unknown and shocking facet of Barack Obama’s life, the other displays what most Obamian critics have long known–that he sorely lacks both discretion and class.
The American public has been misled as to the extent of the Obama family. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12142.)
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Hollywood and Other Liberal Hypocrites
Hollywood and Other Liberal Hypocrites
Scratch a liberal often enough and you’ll always uncover a bigot–and a hypocrite.
No less a figure than George Lucas of Star Wars fame has discovered that fact of life and called out Hollywood liberals–if that’s not redundant–for its racism.
Accused of racism himself after the release of Star Wars due to the lack of inclusion of blacks, Lucas should have been prepared for the racial politics that exists in the Movie Capital of the World.
The famous film producer didn’t, couldn’t, express his feelings in those terms since he still has to work in Tinsel Town but he left no doubt what he meant during an appearance on ultra-liberal Jon Stewart’s ”Daily Show.”
The subject of Lucas’ charge concerned his film about the segregated Tuskegee Airmen in WWII, Red Tails, and Hollywood’s monumental disinterest in distributing the movie or having anything to do with it because, as he told Stewart, “It’s an all black movie. There’s no major white roles in it at all. It’s one of the first all black action pictures ever made.”
He also described Red Tails as “very patriotic, very jingoistic, very old-fashioned, corny,” which may have been another factor in Hollywood’s refusal to assist Lucas even though he financed the filming on his own.
Bigotry is acceptable in Tinsel Town but they cringe at patriotism there saying, “No. We don’t know how to market a movie like this. . . And they don’t believe there’s any foreign market for it. That’s 60 percent of their profit.”
See a brief clip from the film and Stewart’s sit-down with George Lucas here http://bit.ly/zAJ3HG.
In other words, the big wigs wouldn’t distribute Red Tails because it was all about blacks, was patriotic AND, as is typical with “black movies,”didn’t have enough profit potential to stuff their wallets.
Maybe if Lucas’ next effort involves African-Americans bad-mouthing their country, he’d get more support from Hollywood hypocrites.
Hypocrisy–and deception–are rampant in Liberal Land and the current effort to resurrect and refurbish President Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, is probably the most blatant in Washington.
In the event no one has noticed, 2012 is an election year and the president is in the process of “pulling a Clinton,” that is, ostensibly moving to the middle of the socio-political spectrum, transforming into a “moderate,” in hopes of concealing the extremist changes and dashed hopes of the past three years.
With the economy still a mess, there’s little hope in the White House of restoring any real economic hope before November 6th so rehabilitating Obama’s radical background is one way he can forestall anticipated Republican campaign attacks on his extremist past and his far-out leftist associations.
Obama’s old buddies, the un-reconstructed revolutionary Bill Ayers is as out there as he ever was preaching revolt to the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and Rev. Michael Pfleger has never given up his message of self-hating race hatred.
However, Rev. Wright has been relatively less-incendiary–relatively–since candidate Obama disowned him under pressure in the heat of the last campaign.
Therefore, close presidential adviser and confidante, David Axelrod, figured this was a good a time as any to re-hab the good reverend so that the Republican nominee can’t beat his boss over the head with Wright. Since the mainstream media ably assisted last time around in hiding the intimate Obama-Wright connection, the MSM should be onboard again.
Notwithstanding Wright’s history of denouncing white people as congenital liars, his mindless, vicious allegations that America brought on September 11th, 2001, that we caused the AIDS virus, that America is under the control of the KKK and supports terrorism, plus a slew of other craziness, Axelrod is defending the certifiable racist nut.
Axelrod contends that all the criticism boils down to “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”
Either David is smoking what his hero smoked for years, and it’s not cigarettes, or he has evolved into a bigger nutcase than Rev. Wright. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12135.)
Scratch a liberal often enough and you’ll always uncover a bigot–and a hypocrite.
No less a figure than George Lucas of Star Wars fame has discovered that fact of life and called out Hollywood liberals–if that’s not redundant–for its racism.
Accused of racism himself after the release of Star Wars due to the lack of inclusion of blacks, Lucas should have been prepared for the racial politics that exists in the Movie Capital of the World.
The famous film producer didn’t, couldn’t, express his feelings in those terms since he still has to work in Tinsel Town but he left no doubt what he meant during an appearance on ultra-liberal Jon Stewart’s ”Daily Show.”
The subject of Lucas’ charge concerned his film about the segregated Tuskegee Airmen in WWII, Red Tails, and Hollywood’s monumental disinterest in distributing the movie or having anything to do with it because, as he told Stewart, “It’s an all black movie. There’s no major white roles in it at all. It’s one of the first all black action pictures ever made.”
He also described Red Tails as “very patriotic, very jingoistic, very old-fashioned, corny,” which may have been another factor in Hollywood’s refusal to assist Lucas even though he financed the filming on his own.
Bigotry is acceptable in Tinsel Town but they cringe at patriotism there saying, “No. We don’t know how to market a movie like this. . . And they don’t believe there’s any foreign market for it. That’s 60 percent of their profit.”
See a brief clip from the film and Stewart’s sit-down with George Lucas here http://bit.ly/zAJ3HG.
In other words, the big wigs wouldn’t distribute Red Tails because it was all about blacks, was patriotic AND, as is typical with “black movies,”didn’t have enough profit potential to stuff their wallets.
Maybe if Lucas’ next effort involves African-Americans bad-mouthing their country, he’d get more support from Hollywood hypocrites.
Hypocrisy–and deception–are rampant in Liberal Land and the current effort to resurrect and refurbish President Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, is probably the most blatant in Washington.
In the event no one has noticed, 2012 is an election year and the president is in the process of “pulling a Clinton,” that is, ostensibly moving to the middle of the socio-political spectrum, transforming into a “moderate,” in hopes of concealing the extremist changes and dashed hopes of the past three years.
With the economy still a mess, there’s little hope in the White House of restoring any real economic hope before November 6th so rehabilitating Obama’s radical background is one way he can forestall anticipated Republican campaign attacks on his extremist past and his far-out leftist associations.
Obama’s old buddies, the un-reconstructed revolutionary Bill Ayers is as out there as he ever was preaching revolt to the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and Rev. Michael Pfleger has never given up his message of self-hating race hatred.
However, Rev. Wright has been relatively less-incendiary–relatively–since candidate Obama disowned him under pressure in the heat of the last campaign.
Therefore, close presidential adviser and confidante, David Axelrod, figured this was a good a time as any to re-hab the good reverend so that the Republican nominee can’t beat his boss over the head with Wright. Since the mainstream media ably assisted last time around in hiding the intimate Obama-Wright connection, the MSM should be onboard again.
Notwithstanding Wright’s history of denouncing white people as congenital liars, his mindless, vicious allegations that America brought on September 11th, 2001, that we caused the AIDS virus, that America is under the control of the KKK and supports terrorism, plus a slew of other craziness, Axelrod is defending the certifiable racist nut.
Axelrod contends that all the criticism boils down to “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”
Either David is smoking what his hero smoked for years, and it’s not cigarettes, or he has evolved into a bigger nutcase than Rev. Wright. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12135.)
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Two Spunky Conservative Girl Scouts
Two Spunky Conservative Girl Scouts
A teen member of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America is in the news and for the same reason another Scout made (some) headlines last month: They believe only girls should be Girl Scouts. More importantly, they believe in principles.
In December, 15 year old Sydney Volanski appeared on FNC’s “Fox and Friends” and outed the GSUSA as a sinister tool of the Democrat Party and has abandoned its mission as an apolitical advocate for American girls and had adopted that party’s ”progressive” goals.
See her website here http://speaknowgirlscouts.com/.
Among other substantiated allegations, Ms. Volanski charged the GSUSA leadership with blatant propagandizing by guiding Girl Scouts seeking sources of information to such extremist sources as George Soros’ Media Matters, its own publication, MEdia, and to America’s premiere abortionist, Planned Parenthood.
In addition to that misguided guidance to purveyors of leftist propaganda, in the interests of promoting perverse diversity, the GSUSA has dropped the requisite mention of God from the Girl Scout Promise and promotes its own version of the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in regard to sexual orientation.
The articulate Ms. Volanski found all that “progressive” abandonment of Scout tradition and principles repugnant as did other Scout members and leaders who ultimately left the GSUSA after a transgendered, biological boy was admitted to their ranks.
See “The Death of the Girl Scouts” for full details on the motivations of Sydney Volanski and those leaders. (http://bit.ly/zBGq0s.)
Proving they are not alone in their repugnance over the decline of an organization that had long been a model of excellence for future women of America, a Ventura County, California teen Girl Scout, identified only as “Taylor,” has joined the nationwide protest against the GSUSA.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12122.)
A teen member of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America is in the news and for the same reason another Scout made (some) headlines last month: They believe only girls should be Girl Scouts. More importantly, they believe in principles.
In December, 15 year old Sydney Volanski appeared on FNC’s “Fox and Friends” and outed the GSUSA as a sinister tool of the Democrat Party and has abandoned its mission as an apolitical advocate for American girls and had adopted that party’s ”progressive” goals.
See her website here http://speaknowgirlscouts.com/.
Among other substantiated allegations, Ms. Volanski charged the GSUSA leadership with blatant propagandizing by guiding Girl Scouts seeking sources of information to such extremist sources as George Soros’ Media Matters, its own publication, MEdia, and to America’s premiere abortionist, Planned Parenthood.
In addition to that misguided guidance to purveyors of leftist propaganda, in the interests of promoting perverse diversity, the GSUSA has dropped the requisite mention of God from the Girl Scout Promise and promotes its own version of the military’s former “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in regard to sexual orientation.
The articulate Ms. Volanski found all that “progressive” abandonment of Scout tradition and principles repugnant as did other Scout members and leaders who ultimately left the GSUSA after a transgendered, biological boy was admitted to their ranks.
See “The Death of the Girl Scouts” for full details on the motivations of Sydney Volanski and those leaders. (http://bit.ly/zBGq0s.)
Proving they are not alone in their repugnance over the decline of an organization that had long been a model of excellence for future women of America, a Ventura County, California teen Girl Scout, identified only as “Taylor,” has joined the nationwide protest against the GSUSA.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12122.)
Friday, January 13, 2012
Consequences, Intended and Not
Consequences, Intended and Not
Planning is usually a prudent thing to do and, usually, the planning pans out. Sometimes, though, especially when the planning is done by politicians, unintended consequences of misbegotten schemes make you wonder where the pols’ heads are.
Communist regimes are big on planning. Five Year Plans to re-vamp its economy were always a big favorite with the old U.S.S.R. commissars and always resulted in big failures.
One of the few sad remnants of Communism, North Korea, also has little luck when it comes to economics although it is spectacular in staging funerals. The recent obsequies for its late dictator Kim Jong-il were no exception.
North Korea demonstrated its expertise in not only planning its Supreme Leader’s funeral but in its consequences for hapless North Koreans who didn’t cry enough.
As an informant reported, within days of Kim Jong-il’s death, “The authorities are handing down at least six months in a labour-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organised gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”
So much for Communism, so much for the dictatorship of the proletariat where the proles are forced to grieve for a bloody tyrant.
More relevant to Americans are interesting intended and unintended consequences in the U.S.
Last month, the FBI released a report indicating that violent crime in the U.S. fell 6.4 percent in the first half of 2011 and property crimes fell by 3.7 as contrasted with the same time 2010 time period.
That was the unexpected good news.
The bad news–for liberals who seek to disarm law-abiding citizens–is that the increasing number of armed law-abiding citizens in the country no doubt accounted in large part for the drop in crime.
As proven in Florida and elsewhere, criminals are far less inclined to maim, murder, and break into homes and businesses when their prospective victims are prepared to blow them away.
The intent of gun laws is to inhibit the unrestricted ownership of guns, the true consequence of which is to concentrate guns in the hands of criminals while denying honest Americans the right to defend themselves. The joke on liberals is that the latter stocking up on weapons to defend themselves serves as a deterrent against the former.
In a related issue, a presumed unintended consequence of excessive liberality has led to excessive violence.
A federal court judge decided last year that allegedly non-violent California prisoners were uncomfortable in their crowded facilities. He didn’t comment on the discomfort felt by their victims but did order California to give more space to the perpetrators. Strapped California had no money to build more prisons and chose instead to release thousands of convicted and accused “non-violent” offenders into society.
According to La Puente Mayor John Solis, his city and others are suffering the consequences of the judge’s beneficence. Solis reports that ”Sexual assaults are up about 300 percent and assaults with guns and knives up nearly 150 percent citywide” since the release of the reprobates.
He blames “prison realignment,” a euphemism for loosing barbarians in a state where gun laws are strictly enforced and a resultant explosion of barbarity.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12104.)
Planning is usually a prudent thing to do and, usually, the planning pans out. Sometimes, though, especially when the planning is done by politicians, unintended consequences of misbegotten schemes make you wonder where the pols’ heads are.
Communist regimes are big on planning. Five Year Plans to re-vamp its economy were always a big favorite with the old U.S.S.R. commissars and always resulted in big failures.
One of the few sad remnants of Communism, North Korea, also has little luck when it comes to economics although it is spectacular in staging funerals. The recent obsequies for its late dictator Kim Jong-il were no exception.
North Korea demonstrated its expertise in not only planning its Supreme Leader’s funeral but in its consequences for hapless North Koreans who didn’t cry enough.
As an informant reported, within days of Kim Jong-il’s death, “The authorities are handing down at least six months in a labour-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organised gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine.”
So much for Communism, so much for the dictatorship of the proletariat where the proles are forced to grieve for a bloody tyrant.
More relevant to Americans are interesting intended and unintended consequences in the U.S.
Last month, the FBI released a report indicating that violent crime in the U.S. fell 6.4 percent in the first half of 2011 and property crimes fell by 3.7 as contrasted with the same time 2010 time period.
That was the unexpected good news.
The bad news–for liberals who seek to disarm law-abiding citizens–is that the increasing number of armed law-abiding citizens in the country no doubt accounted in large part for the drop in crime.
As proven in Florida and elsewhere, criminals are far less inclined to maim, murder, and break into homes and businesses when their prospective victims are prepared to blow them away.
The intent of gun laws is to inhibit the unrestricted ownership of guns, the true consequence of which is to concentrate guns in the hands of criminals while denying honest Americans the right to defend themselves. The joke on liberals is that the latter stocking up on weapons to defend themselves serves as a deterrent against the former.
In a related issue, a presumed unintended consequence of excessive liberality has led to excessive violence.
A federal court judge decided last year that allegedly non-violent California prisoners were uncomfortable in their crowded facilities. He didn’t comment on the discomfort felt by their victims but did order California to give more space to the perpetrators. Strapped California had no money to build more prisons and chose instead to release thousands of convicted and accused “non-violent” offenders into society.
According to La Puente Mayor John Solis, his city and others are suffering the consequences of the judge’s beneficence. Solis reports that ”Sexual assaults are up about 300 percent and assaults with guns and knives up nearly 150 percent citywide” since the release of the reprobates.
He blames “prison realignment,” a euphemism for loosing barbarians in a state where gun laws are strictly enforced and a resultant explosion of barbarity.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12104.)
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Making Sense of the Senseless
Making Sense of the Senseless
A dog biting a man, especially a mailman, isn’t news. An illegal alien staging a witchhunt and a conservative endorsing a liberal, now those are odd–yet explicable–news stories.
Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan Uncle Omar Onyango Obama, brother of the president’s “dear Aunt Zeituni” who was also a fugitive from immigration law until she miraculously was granted asylum, is fighting his August arrest.
One would think someone who sneaked into this country illegally and ended up arrested would try to keep a low profile or, if he had any sense of decency, hop the next Kenya Airways flight to Nairobi. Not so with Uncle Omar who is trying to get a Massachusetts court to turn over the driving record of the cop who arrested him for a DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to yield the right of way in Framingham, MA.
Notwithstanding established facts that Omar Onyango Obama flunked several sobriety tests with a reading of 0.14 percent on a blood-alcohol test, far beyond the Massachusetts’ legal driving limit of 0.08 percent, the high-powered lawyers of the president’s uncle are evidently attempting to impugn the officer’s integrity.
Also evident is that Uncle Omar has no fear of deportation.
After all, sister Zeituni beat that rap, went on to condemn “the system” that had discriminated against her, and is still on the Boston dole. Omar might be a leech like Zeituni but he knows his rights. When he was arrested, his first words were, “Take me to my leader.” Okay, more precisely, he said according to police records, “I think I will call the White House.”
See “The Curious Case of Uncle Omar,” http://bit.ly/AbgmZx.
I can understand the arrogance of Obama’s Uncle Omar, who was seen snickering at his arraignment, since Aunt Zeituni had already proven the inefficacy of America’s immigration law as well as the efficacy of presidential influence on behalf of his relatives.
Where and how the siblings, one unemployed and in public housing, the other a liquor store clerk, found the funds to retain attorneys and, in Zeituni’s case, file repeated appeals of deportation orders, is still a mystery but at least we know the basis of Onyango’s arrogance: He has a friend in the White House.
More mysterious is the matter of an outstanding conservative spokesman, John Bolton, endorsing for president of the United States a man whose conservative credentials are as ambiguous as those of Newt Gringich’s.
Wednesday evening, Bolton appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record” where he seemed to back off his well-established conservatism with his endorsement.
An astute man, lawyer, advisor to presidents who served a tempestuous 16months as United States Permanent Representative to the U.N., Bolton is nobody’s fool.
By endorsing Romney, he was actually practicing a practical conservatism, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12097.)
A dog biting a man, especially a mailman, isn’t news. An illegal alien staging a witchhunt and a conservative endorsing a liberal, now those are odd–yet explicable–news stories.
Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan Uncle Omar Onyango Obama, brother of the president’s “dear Aunt Zeituni” who was also a fugitive from immigration law until she miraculously was granted asylum, is fighting his August arrest.
One would think someone who sneaked into this country illegally and ended up arrested would try to keep a low profile or, if he had any sense of decency, hop the next Kenya Airways flight to Nairobi. Not so with Uncle Omar who is trying to get a Massachusetts court to turn over the driving record of the cop who arrested him for a DUI, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to yield the right of way in Framingham, MA.
Notwithstanding established facts that Omar Onyango Obama flunked several sobriety tests with a reading of 0.14 percent on a blood-alcohol test, far beyond the Massachusetts’ legal driving limit of 0.08 percent, the high-powered lawyers of the president’s uncle are evidently attempting to impugn the officer’s integrity.
Also evident is that Uncle Omar has no fear of deportation.
After all, sister Zeituni beat that rap, went on to condemn “the system” that had discriminated against her, and is still on the Boston dole. Omar might be a leech like Zeituni but he knows his rights. When he was arrested, his first words were, “Take me to my leader.” Okay, more precisely, he said according to police records, “I think I will call the White House.”
See “The Curious Case of Uncle Omar,” http://bit.ly/AbgmZx.
I can understand the arrogance of Obama’s Uncle Omar, who was seen snickering at his arraignment, since Aunt Zeituni had already proven the inefficacy of America’s immigration law as well as the efficacy of presidential influence on behalf of his relatives.
Where and how the siblings, one unemployed and in public housing, the other a liquor store clerk, found the funds to retain attorneys and, in Zeituni’s case, file repeated appeals of deportation orders, is still a mystery but at least we know the basis of Onyango’s arrogance: He has a friend in the White House.
More mysterious is the matter of an outstanding conservative spokesman, John Bolton, endorsing for president of the United States a man whose conservative credentials are as ambiguous as those of Newt Gringich’s.
Wednesday evening, Bolton appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record” where he seemed to back off his well-established conservatism with his endorsement.
An astute man, lawyer, advisor to presidents who served a tempestuous 16months as United States Permanent Representative to the U.N., Bolton is nobody’s fool.
By endorsing Romney, he was actually practicing a practical conservatism, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12097.)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"White People Problems"
"White People Problems"
Didja hear the one about the black friends who got all perturbed because they had to sit next to David Duke on a Greyhound? How about the black welfare queen who was upset over the size of her check? Or the joke about the black couple arguing over who was the real father of their kids?
You think saying such things isn’t funny, that they’re racist, that they should be condemned by the mainstream media, and the home of whoever articulated such insensitive remarks should be picketed by Al Sharpton? If so, you’re right because they are racist.
However, if someone spouts comparable venom on network television, they’re applauded–as long as the butt of the jokes are white people.
Former NBA star Charles Barkley hosted “SNL” last Saturday and appeared in a sketch titled, “White People Problems.”
According to Barkley and the “Saturday Night Live” writers, the “problems” of white people consist of friends irritated because they weren’t seated together on an airline, “a caucasian crisis” occurred when an annoying white customer at Arbys questioned the clerk as to whether Arbys’ chickens are raised on organic farms, and when a nasty white couple was confronted with the dilemma of disinviting friends from their 5-bedroom summer home.
Interspersed throughout the skit are a shot of “nursery school applications,” Barkley’s comment that the airline couple’s issue is just “white noise,” his dismissing the Arbys’ incident as ”awkward . . . a white people word that can be applied to every situation,” and blowing off the disinviters with, ”That problem is so white it should go snowboarding. . . .
(Read more and see the video at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12090.)
Didja hear the one about the black friends who got all perturbed because they had to sit next to David Duke on a Greyhound? How about the black welfare queen who was upset over the size of her check? Or the joke about the black couple arguing over who was the real father of their kids?
You think saying such things isn’t funny, that they’re racist, that they should be condemned by the mainstream media, and the home of whoever articulated such insensitive remarks should be picketed by Al Sharpton? If so, you’re right because they are racist.
However, if someone spouts comparable venom on network television, they’re applauded–as long as the butt of the jokes are white people.
Former NBA star Charles Barkley hosted “SNL” last Saturday and appeared in a sketch titled, “White People Problems.”
According to Barkley and the “Saturday Night Live” writers, the “problems” of white people consist of friends irritated because they weren’t seated together on an airline, “a caucasian crisis” occurred when an annoying white customer at Arbys questioned the clerk as to whether Arbys’ chickens are raised on organic farms, and when a nasty white couple was confronted with the dilemma of disinviting friends from their 5-bedroom summer home.
Interspersed throughout the skit are a shot of “nursery school applications,” Barkley’s comment that the airline couple’s issue is just “white noise,” his dismissing the Arbys’ incident as ”awkward . . . a white people word that can be applied to every situation,” and blowing off the disinviters with, ”That problem is so white it should go snowboarding. . . .
(Read more and see the video at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12090.)
The Rising of La Raza
The Rising of La Raza
La Raza is on the rise.
Wait, you’ve never heard of La Raza and don’t give a hoot whether it rises, falls, or turns purple?
That’s understandable if you don’t live in America’s southwest or out on the Left Coast. There, people are very familiar with at least the name “La Raza” even if many don’t understand the movement or its goals.
La Raza, “the race” in Spanish, doesn’t refer to a marathon or a sprint but rather to the National Council of La Raza, the NCLR, and the Movemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, MEChA.
What? You’ve never heard of Aztlan, the NCLR, or MEChA either?
Fear not, you soon may, although it’s doubtful you’ll hear or read much in the mainstream media about the plan of the radical, revolutionary La Raza to re-claim huge swaths of America’s southwest for Mexico to re-unify it under the mythical Mexican kingdom of Aztlan.
You soon may because President Barack Hussein Obama has just named former La Raza Vice President, Cecilia Muñoz, to the post of White House Domestic Policy Director. After serving for three years as Obama’s point woman on legalizing illegals, Muñoz will now be in charge of administering and executing the nation’s domestic policies.
She will also serve as a high-profile Latino during an election year in which the president is desperately seeking the Latino vote to put him over the top in November.
What’s wrong with this picture? Tons!
Aztlan or Aztatlian never existed except in Mexican legend yet La Raza is unabashedly dedicated to waging war on what it calls the “northern front” to seize lands allegedly stolen with the 1848 signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
That treaty concluded the Mexican-American War won by the United States and stripped Mexico of a full 55% of its territory.
Considering that La Raza is waging its vindictive and mindless war under the banner of a myth, its ambitions are breathtaking: Those lands now encompass the entirety of the states of Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, parts of Washington, and would increase the size of Mexico by a full third, not to mention converting tens of millions of Americans into Mexicans.
It’s doubtful Cecilia Muñoz will be able to win the second Mexican-American war or accomplish that re-unification in her new role as National Domestic Policy Director.
Those scenarios are as doubtful as the probability that a previous vice president of La Raza will be fair and objective in conducting the domestic affairs of the country that made Mexico a Third World nation. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12082.)
La Raza is on the rise.
Wait, you’ve never heard of La Raza and don’t give a hoot whether it rises, falls, or turns purple?
That’s understandable if you don’t live in America’s southwest or out on the Left Coast. There, people are very familiar with at least the name “La Raza” even if many don’t understand the movement or its goals.
La Raza, “the race” in Spanish, doesn’t refer to a marathon or a sprint but rather to the National Council of La Raza, the NCLR, and the Movemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, MEChA.
What? You’ve never heard of Aztlan, the NCLR, or MEChA either?
Fear not, you soon may, although it’s doubtful you’ll hear or read much in the mainstream media about the plan of the radical, revolutionary La Raza to re-claim huge swaths of America’s southwest for Mexico to re-unify it under the mythical Mexican kingdom of Aztlan.
You soon may because President Barack Hussein Obama has just named former La Raza Vice President, Cecilia Muñoz, to the post of White House Domestic Policy Director. After serving for three years as Obama’s point woman on legalizing illegals, Muñoz will now be in charge of administering and executing the nation’s domestic policies.
She will also serve as a high-profile Latino during an election year in which the president is desperately seeking the Latino vote to put him over the top in November.
What’s wrong with this picture? Tons!
Aztlan or Aztatlian never existed except in Mexican legend yet La Raza is unabashedly dedicated to waging war on what it calls the “northern front” to seize lands allegedly stolen with the 1848 signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
That treaty concluded the Mexican-American War won by the United States and stripped Mexico of a full 55% of its territory.
Considering that La Raza is waging its vindictive and mindless war under the banner of a myth, its ambitions are breathtaking: Those lands now encompass the entirety of the states of Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, parts of Washington, and would increase the size of Mexico by a full third, not to mention converting tens of millions of Americans into Mexicans.
It’s doubtful Cecilia Muñoz will be able to win the second Mexican-American war or accomplish that re-unification in her new role as National Domestic Policy Director.
Those scenarios are as doubtful as the probability that a previous vice president of La Raza will be fair and objective in conducting the domestic affairs of the country that made Mexico a Third World nation. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12082.)
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Abortion News: Good, Bad, and Worse
Abortion News: Good, Bad, and Worse
Unlike the weather, few people like talking about abortion. Nevertheless, much like the weather, abortion is real and omnipresent. A principal difference is that the weather is sometimes beautiful and abortion is always ugly.
In America, the foundation of the right to legally kill a pre-born child is rooted in the Supreme Court’s split 1973 Roe v. Wade Decision based on a woman’s non-existent constitutional right to privacy. Just as with SCOTUS’ flawed 1857 Dred Scott Decision, Roe v. Wade will some day be overturned.
In the interim while we await that surety, the most committed pro-abortion president in history, Barack Hussein Obama, may have inadvertently provided the next president a precedent to scrap Roe v. Wade or, at the minimum, render its enforcement useless.
By announcing he has the authority to bypass Congress and rule by executive decree and by making so-called recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, Obama has established two principles: First, that the Chief Executive has the power to govern by fiat and, second, that he can appoint Supreme Court justices without the advice and consent of the Senate whenever he determines that body is in recess, whether they are or aren’t.
Of course, that whole scenario is a stretch. It’s based on the assumptions that the next president will be a pro-life Republican, that he is not a “constitutional scholar” like Obama, but that he flouts the laws of the land anyway.
Unfortunately, that stretch is the only recent plus in the ongoing battle of the Abortion Lobby against those who believe in the sanctity of human life.
Two stories–not scenarios–reveal that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, PPFA, is a conglomeration of liars and that a recommended abortafacient drug can be almost as deadly to mothers as it is to babies.
The PPFA has for decades billed itself as a beneficent enterprise dedicated to, well, planning parenthood, providing pre-natal care and information on “reproductive health,” etc. As such over the years, it has been generously rewarded for its beneficence with billions of taxpayer dollars with which to continue its planning and caring and informing despite the fact it functions primarily as the nation’s busiest abortionist.
Exposed repeatedly as facilitators of child prostitution, purveyors of smut to children, and illegally performing underage abortions, PPFA still has friends in Congress and a major buddy in the White House, all of whom refuse to cut its public funding–46% of its billion dollar budget.
In view of Planned Parenthood’s annual report, rational thinkers might expect its supporters would re-evaluate their position but don’t bet on it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12071.)
Unlike the weather, few people like talking about abortion. Nevertheless, much like the weather, abortion is real and omnipresent. A principal difference is that the weather is sometimes beautiful and abortion is always ugly.
In America, the foundation of the right to legally kill a pre-born child is rooted in the Supreme Court’s split 1973 Roe v. Wade Decision based on a woman’s non-existent constitutional right to privacy. Just as with SCOTUS’ flawed 1857 Dred Scott Decision, Roe v. Wade will some day be overturned.
In the interim while we await that surety, the most committed pro-abortion president in history, Barack Hussein Obama, may have inadvertently provided the next president a precedent to scrap Roe v. Wade or, at the minimum, render its enforcement useless.
By announcing he has the authority to bypass Congress and rule by executive decree and by making so-called recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, Obama has established two principles: First, that the Chief Executive has the power to govern by fiat and, second, that he can appoint Supreme Court justices without the advice and consent of the Senate whenever he determines that body is in recess, whether they are or aren’t.
Of course, that whole scenario is a stretch. It’s based on the assumptions that the next president will be a pro-life Republican, that he is not a “constitutional scholar” like Obama, but that he flouts the laws of the land anyway.
Unfortunately, that stretch is the only recent plus in the ongoing battle of the Abortion Lobby against those who believe in the sanctity of human life.
Two stories–not scenarios–reveal that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, PPFA, is a conglomeration of liars and that a recommended abortafacient drug can be almost as deadly to mothers as it is to babies.
The PPFA has for decades billed itself as a beneficent enterprise dedicated to, well, planning parenthood, providing pre-natal care and information on “reproductive health,” etc. As such over the years, it has been generously rewarded for its beneficence with billions of taxpayer dollars with which to continue its planning and caring and informing despite the fact it functions primarily as the nation’s busiest abortionist.
Exposed repeatedly as facilitators of child prostitution, purveyors of smut to children, and illegally performing underage abortions, PPFA still has friends in Congress and a major buddy in the White House, all of whom refuse to cut its public funding–46% of its billion dollar budget.
In view of Planned Parenthood’s annual report, rational thinkers might expect its supporters would re-evaluate their position but don’t bet on it. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12071.)
Monday, January 9, 2012
Parties, Dissensions, and Eruptions at the White House
Parties, Dissensions, and Eruptions at the White House
Writer Jodi Kantor had better watch her back. Her simply-titled book, The Obamas, set to be released January 10th, is simply a blockbuster which could bust the White House.
Described in part on Amazon as, ”Filled with riveting detail and insight into their [the Obama] partnership, emotions and personalities, and written with a keen eye for the ironies of public life, THE OBAMAS is an intimate portrait that will surprise even readers who thought they knew the President and First Lady,” the book does far more than that.
The tell-all book based on interviews with 30 administration aides exposes the First Couple as frauds and dissemblers, liars and back-biters.
Pre-release details of The Obamas have been leaking out in little dribs and major drabs and one of the latter is that during the depths of the Great Recession in 2009, Obama and Company threw a Halloween party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that would have rivaled anything Hollywood or Broadway could have ever conceived.
In fact, Hollywood may have conceived it. At least Tinseltown was well- represented at the Alice in Wonderland-themed event, with megastar Johnny Depp, director Tim Burton, and Star Wars’ Chewbacca along with White House staffers, military families, and D.C. kids in attendance as well as the mainstream media.
Sounds like an extravaganza, right?
Well, it seems to have been–with the state dining room decorated by Burton in full Halloween regalia, Depp decked out as the Mad Hatter, Michelle Obama as a black and yellow cat, fruit punch served in blood vials, huge stuffed animals, etc.
Yet, it was as if it never happened since only one member of what BigJournalism.com calls Obama’s Palace Guards–the MSM–reported on the festivities. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12062.)
Writer Jodi Kantor had better watch her back. Her simply-titled book, The Obamas, set to be released January 10th, is simply a blockbuster which could bust the White House.
Described in part on Amazon as, ”Filled with riveting detail and insight into their [the Obama] partnership, emotions and personalities, and written with a keen eye for the ironies of public life, THE OBAMAS is an intimate portrait that will surprise even readers who thought they knew the President and First Lady,” the book does far more than that.
The tell-all book based on interviews with 30 administration aides exposes the First Couple as frauds and dissemblers, liars and back-biters.
Pre-release details of The Obamas have been leaking out in little dribs and major drabs and one of the latter is that during the depths of the Great Recession in 2009, Obama and Company threw a Halloween party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that would have rivaled anything Hollywood or Broadway could have ever conceived.
In fact, Hollywood may have conceived it. At least Tinseltown was well- represented at the Alice in Wonderland-themed event, with megastar Johnny Depp, director Tim Burton, and Star Wars’ Chewbacca along with White House staffers, military families, and D.C. kids in attendance as well as the mainstream media.
Sounds like an extravaganza, right?
Well, it seems to have been–with the state dining room decorated by Burton in full Halloween regalia, Depp decked out as the Mad Hatter, Michelle Obama as a black and yellow cat, fruit punch served in blood vials, huge stuffed animals, etc.
Yet, it was as if it never happened since only one member of what BigJournalism.com calls Obama’s Palace Guards–the MSM–reported on the festivities. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12062.)
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Advantages of Having Friends in High Places
The Advantages of Having Friends in High Places
Call them friends in high places or connections or contacts, knowing people with influence in positions to grease the skids for jobs, perks, or to just plain help you out is an inestimable advantage in America. In turn, when political friends come through, it translates into votes for the politicians.
Forget qualifications, education, merit, or need. Nothing is more beneficial than knowing someone with some pull to get you what you want. And, who has more pull than the current resident of the White House?
Unions have been calling in their chits ever since they blindly–or not so blindly, considering the benefits they reaped– supported the passage of the Obamacare abomination. They have been reaping ever since in the form of wholesale waivers from the onerous burdens of the Democrat-sponsored 2009 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law VP Biden called “a big f*cking deal.”
Over the last six months alone, 543,812 union members have joined federal employees, Congress, and the president in being exempted from Obamacare, a number dwarfed by the millions of unionistas granted exemptions prior to last June when Obamians allegedly turned off the exemption spigot after it came under public scrutiny.
See “Obama’s Selective Waivers and Exemption’s."
Reliable friends in high places may retreat but, if they’re truly dependable and know where their bread is buttered and with an election approaching, they continue their friendship.
Other deep-dyed Friends of Obama are his huge cadre of federal employees.
Their president saw fit to cut tens of thousands from the ranks of America’s military, forces missioned to defend and protect the nation, yet found it within his generous heart in the midst of the Great Recession to propose a salary increase for federal workers.
Albeit a modest raise of 0.5%, it’s far more than America’s millions of unemployed and underemployed will receive. Before their raise, the average civilian federal worker was raking in $75,296 plus benefits valued at $28,323 versus average $46,326 salaries and vanishing bennies in the private sector.
Now the people who don’t answer their phones in Washington will be getting a few thou extra to not answer their phones.
The 1939 Hatch Act prohibited federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities, a restriction lifted in 1993 after three union leaders were accused of violations. The result? Federal employes are no longer precluded from contributing to political campaigns or from working on behalf of their favorite politicians.
Who was it called them civil servants? They’re more like a civilian army under the command of the man who pays them.
In addition to that army of 2.1 worker bees and his union armies of millions more, a third contingent of those owing a deep debt of gratitude to their executive friend in the Oval Office is the Gay Lobby.
Homosexuals owe Obama Big Time . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12050.)
Call them friends in high places or connections or contacts, knowing people with influence in positions to grease the skids for jobs, perks, or to just plain help you out is an inestimable advantage in America. In turn, when political friends come through, it translates into votes for the politicians.
Forget qualifications, education, merit, or need. Nothing is more beneficial than knowing someone with some pull to get you what you want. And, who has more pull than the current resident of the White House?
Unions have been calling in their chits ever since they blindly–or not so blindly, considering the benefits they reaped– supported the passage of the Obamacare abomination. They have been reaping ever since in the form of wholesale waivers from the onerous burdens of the Democrat-sponsored 2009 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law VP Biden called “a big f*cking deal.”
Over the last six months alone, 543,812 union members have joined federal employees, Congress, and the president in being exempted from Obamacare, a number dwarfed by the millions of unionistas granted exemptions prior to last June when Obamians allegedly turned off the exemption spigot after it came under public scrutiny.
See “Obama’s Selective Waivers and Exemption’s."
Reliable friends in high places may retreat but, if they’re truly dependable and know where their bread is buttered and with an election approaching, they continue their friendship.
Other deep-dyed Friends of Obama are his huge cadre of federal employees.
Their president saw fit to cut tens of thousands from the ranks of America’s military, forces missioned to defend and protect the nation, yet found it within his generous heart in the midst of the Great Recession to propose a salary increase for federal workers.
Albeit a modest raise of 0.5%, it’s far more than America’s millions of unemployed and underemployed will receive. Before their raise, the average civilian federal worker was raking in $75,296 plus benefits valued at $28,323 versus average $46,326 salaries and vanishing bennies in the private sector.
Now the people who don’t answer their phones in Washington will be getting a few thou extra to not answer their phones.
The 1939 Hatch Act prohibited federal employees from engaging in partisan political activities, a restriction lifted in 1993 after three union leaders were accused of violations. The result? Federal employes are no longer precluded from contributing to political campaigns or from working on behalf of their favorite politicians.
Who was it called them civil servants? They’re more like a civilian army under the command of the man who pays them.
In addition to that army of 2.1 worker bees and his union armies of millions more, a third contingent of those owing a deep debt of gratitude to their executive friend in the Oval Office is the Gay Lobby.
Homosexuals owe Obama Big Time . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12050.)
Tony Blankley, Requiescat in Pace
Tony Blankley, Requiescat in Pace
Author, political commentator, outstanding American conservative and patriot, Anthony “Tony” Blankley, died at 63 on January 7th, 2012.
He will be sorely missed.
Mr. Blankley’s career included roles as a child actor, 10 years service as a prosecutor in the California Attorney General’s Office, policy analyst- speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, a 7-year stint as Newt Gingrich’s press secretary, lecturer on the university circuit, writer for the Washington Times, and sparring with Eleanor Clift on “The McLoughlin Group.”
One of Mr. Blankley’s greatest contributions to an understanding of what he perceived as the greatest threat to the survival of the United States and the Western World, Islam, was his semi-fictional, The West’s Last Stand: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?
He posited the theory that, in view of the pervasive Islamification of Europe, if we want to survive, America may have to go it alone.
Affable when he wanted to be, acerbic when he had to be, to the end, Blankley battled for conservative causes as tenaciously as he battled stomach cancer. As recently as last fall, he was publishing incisive articles on TownHall.com, including the poignant, reflective piece titled, “Thanksgiving 2011.”
A naturalized American born in Britain, Blankley wrote of that “enchanting month from Thanksgiving through Christmas to New Years,” commenting on mankind’s narrow escapes from a catastrophic conclusion, the fall of the USSR, 9/11/2001, the rise of radical Islam, the resurgence of China, the economic crash of 2008, the incompetence of Washington, and the chaos in Europe.
In a very real sense, Tony Blankley’s concluding paragraph in “Thanksgiving 2011″ capsulized both the essence of Tony Blankley and his understanding of what makes America America.
He wrote, ”Our founding words and ideas are ever young. They are imperishable. And we should not wander from our faith in them. On America’s Thanksgiving Day 2011, we should be thankful for what our founding Fathers created and bequeathed to us and to the world. And we should be strengthened to fight for the more complete application of those ideas in the election year that follows this week’s prayerful Thanksgiving celebration.” (http://bit.ly/A1xnuu)
May God bless Tony Blankley. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12057)
Author, political commentator, outstanding American conservative and patriot, Anthony “Tony” Blankley, died at 63 on January 7th, 2012.
He will be sorely missed.
Mr. Blankley’s career included roles as a child actor, 10 years service as a prosecutor in the California Attorney General’s Office, policy analyst- speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, a 7-year stint as Newt Gingrich’s press secretary, lecturer on the university circuit, writer for the Washington Times, and sparring with Eleanor Clift on “The McLoughlin Group.”
One of Mr. Blankley’s greatest contributions to an understanding of what he perceived as the greatest threat to the survival of the United States and the Western World, Islam, was his semi-fictional, The West’s Last Stand: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?
He posited the theory that, in view of the pervasive Islamification of Europe, if we want to survive, America may have to go it alone.
Affable when he wanted to be, acerbic when he had to be, to the end, Blankley battled for conservative causes as tenaciously as he battled stomach cancer. As recently as last fall, he was publishing incisive articles on TownHall.com, including the poignant, reflective piece titled, “Thanksgiving 2011.”
A naturalized American born in Britain, Blankley wrote of that “enchanting month from Thanksgiving through Christmas to New Years,” commenting on mankind’s narrow escapes from a catastrophic conclusion, the fall of the USSR, 9/11/2001, the rise of radical Islam, the resurgence of China, the economic crash of 2008, the incompetence of Washington, and the chaos in Europe.
In a very real sense, Tony Blankley’s concluding paragraph in “Thanksgiving 2011″ capsulized both the essence of Tony Blankley and his understanding of what makes America America.
He wrote, ”Our founding words and ideas are ever young. They are imperishable. And we should not wander from our faith in them. On America’s Thanksgiving Day 2011, we should be thankful for what our founding Fathers created and bequeathed to us and to the world. And we should be strengthened to fight for the more complete application of those ideas in the election year that follows this week’s prayerful Thanksgiving celebration.” (http://bit.ly/A1xnuu)
May God bless Tony Blankley. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12057)
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Suffer Little Children
Suffer Little Children
The oft-misinterpreted phrase from Matthew 19:14 in the King James version of the Bible, “Suffer little children,” has taken on meanings in the world today far beyond excluding kids from hearing Christ’s words.
The precise quotation, “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” has been adapted to everything from a short story by Stephen King to pop songs with entirely different connotations which are far more bothersome.
Kids are probably suffering more in 2011 than ever before for various reasons.
In addition to abortion statistics and the act of abortion itself which involves the ultimate suffering, death in the womb for babies before they get the opportunity to grow into children, there is other appalling evidence that fewer people really care about kids.
The disturbing values of some Muslim immigrants have compounded the already-distubed prevailing culture of devaluing human life in America and throughout the so-called civilized world. Both have contributed exponentially to childhood suffering.
Two stories out of England, one relating to atrocities in Liverpool, the other to one in Harlem, graphically illustrate the problem.
The Liverpool matter actually involves a combination of atrocious events–vicious and “endemic” gang rapes by Muslim men of young non-Muslim girls and a concerted effort by journalists to cover them up in the interests of discouraging “racists” and “fascists” and promoting “the development of social harmony and well-being.” (http://bit.ly/wU2QRx)
As Brits would say, What poppycock!
On January 3rd, eleven Muslim men–Abdul Aziz, Abdul Qayyum, Abdul Rauf, Adil Khan, Hamid Safi, Kabeer Hasan, Liaqat Hussain Shah, Mohammad Amin, Mohammad Sajid, Qamar Shahzad, and Shabir Ahmed–went on trial in Liverpool for the organized gang rapes.
According to an authoritative source and in accordance with the guidelines of Britain’s National Union of Journalists, NUJ, “You’ll not find a single reference to their crimes or their upcoming trial anywhere in the British media. Anywhere.”
The Koran condones Muslim men engaging in sexual intercourse with chattel, that is, with captive women and slave girls. With all the rights and privileges that have been accorded Muslims throughout Europe, they apparently feel nubile infidels are fair game, tantamount to captive slaves.
Almost worse, the British media obviously concurs since they won’t report to the public on the trial of the rapists. They apparently feel publicity would exacerbate native Britons’ justified fury over Muslim interlopers destroying their country, and their children.
Maybe when the daughter of a NUJ member is gangraped, NUJ rules will change. And maybe not.
Meanwhile, as young Liverpudlian girls and their European sisters in pain suffer at the hands of Muslims so, too, do Harlem youngsters suffer–with the qualification that the latter don’t seem to mind their suffering. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12037.)
The oft-misinterpreted phrase from Matthew 19:14 in the King James version of the Bible, “Suffer little children,” has taken on meanings in the world today far beyond excluding kids from hearing Christ’s words.
The precise quotation, “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” has been adapted to everything from a short story by Stephen King to pop songs with entirely different connotations which are far more bothersome.
Kids are probably suffering more in 2011 than ever before for various reasons.
In addition to abortion statistics and the act of abortion itself which involves the ultimate suffering, death in the womb for babies before they get the opportunity to grow into children, there is other appalling evidence that fewer people really care about kids.
The disturbing values of some Muslim immigrants have compounded the already-distubed prevailing culture of devaluing human life in America and throughout the so-called civilized world. Both have contributed exponentially to childhood suffering.
Two stories out of England, one relating to atrocities in Liverpool, the other to one in Harlem, graphically illustrate the problem.
The Liverpool matter actually involves a combination of atrocious events–vicious and “endemic” gang rapes by Muslim men of young non-Muslim girls and a concerted effort by journalists to cover them up in the interests of discouraging “racists” and “fascists” and promoting “the development of social harmony and well-being.” (http://bit.ly/wU2QRx)
As Brits would say, What poppycock!
On January 3rd, eleven Muslim men–Abdul Aziz, Abdul Qayyum, Abdul Rauf, Adil Khan, Hamid Safi, Kabeer Hasan, Liaqat Hussain Shah, Mohammad Amin, Mohammad Sajid, Qamar Shahzad, and Shabir Ahmed–went on trial in Liverpool for the organized gang rapes.
According to an authoritative source and in accordance with the guidelines of Britain’s National Union of Journalists, NUJ, “You’ll not find a single reference to their crimes or their upcoming trial anywhere in the British media. Anywhere.”
The Koran condones Muslim men engaging in sexual intercourse with chattel, that is, with captive women and slave girls. With all the rights and privileges that have been accorded Muslims throughout Europe, they apparently feel nubile infidels are fair game, tantamount to captive slaves.
Almost worse, the British media obviously concurs since they won’t report to the public on the trial of the rapists. They apparently feel publicity would exacerbate native Britons’ justified fury over Muslim interlopers destroying their country, and their children.
Maybe when the daughter of a NUJ member is gangraped, NUJ rules will change. And maybe not.
Meanwhile, as young Liverpudlian girls and their European sisters in pain suffer at the hands of Muslims so, too, do Harlem youngsters suffer–with the qualification that the latter don’t seem to mind their suffering. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12037.)
Friday, January 6, 2012
Galloping Marxism in Our Schools
Galloping Marxism in Our Schools
Karl Heinrich Marx was a brilliant man. The sage co-founder of one of the two principal social scouges of the twentieth century knew the surest path to godless tyranny was centralized control of schools, colleges, and universities.
Marx recognized Communism-Marxism’s critical need to propagandize the young in order to rid them of anti-proletariat ideas inculcated by parents and churches and for public schools to adopt curricula that denies God, morality, traditional family values, the concept of private ownership of property, and to stoke class warfare.
If any of that sounds familiar, it should. America is experiencing Marxism-in-action today as seen not only in tax policies but in the widespread, leftist radicalism on college campuses and public schools becoming hotbeds of social brainwashing to complement the deteriorization of standards and learning.
We are seeing the patently unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government into local education with dictates, mandates, and oversights by the U.S. Department of Education as it rapidly centralizes control of American education.
We are witnessing the leftist National Education Association busily engaged in discouraging parental choice and home-schooling and fully endorsing those federal intrusions while pushing for inclusion and diversity instead of more effective education.
We are burdened with local districts too feckless to denounce governmental encroachments and administrators too imbued with liberal doctrine to resist the leftward lurch toward the Marxist ideals embraced by our president.
To be sure, there were unmistakable signs of controlled centralization- indoctrination long before the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Since 2009, however, those signs have developed into a full-blown tsunami of Marxist doctrinaires and godless subversives acting under the guise of educators, all of whom were committed adherents to Obama’s twisted Marxist philosophy, many of whom signed on to his carefully-designed cult of personality.
At first, it was comical when schools like one in Hempstead, New York re-named themselves after Obama even before he was elected. Another in Asbury Park, New Jersey did likewise, before it was closed last July.
Throughout the nation, countless schools, localities, school districts, and streets changed names in honor of someone whose primary claim to fame was his (partial) blackness, whose father was a Marxist, and who has governed as if he dreams the collectivist dreams of his father.
Indoctrination of children comes in many colors. One favorite ploy is the use of songs.
A classic was the ditty composed by a black New Jersey teacher in 2009 who forced her class to sing a paean to their new god. Its unmemorable lyrics included, Mmm, mmm, mm!/Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again. . .” It gets worse with, ”Mmm, mmm, mm!/ Barack Hussein Obama/Yes!”
The parody is a vast improvement: “Mmm, mmm, mm!/Barack Hussein Obama/He said we must pay the man/To make this country strong again/Taking your money doesn’t matter/’cause we know He can spend it better. . .”
That song is old hat now. Obamamarxists have expanded their musical vistas to incorporate anarchic elements in their efforts to undermine values and seduce children into believing chaos and revolution were superior to order and civilized behavior. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12029.)
Karl Heinrich Marx was a brilliant man. The sage co-founder of one of the two principal social scouges of the twentieth century knew the surest path to godless tyranny was centralized control of schools, colleges, and universities.
Marx recognized Communism-Marxism’s critical need to propagandize the young in order to rid them of anti-proletariat ideas inculcated by parents and churches and for public schools to adopt curricula that denies God, morality, traditional family values, the concept of private ownership of property, and to stoke class warfare.
If any of that sounds familiar, it should. America is experiencing Marxism-in-action today as seen not only in tax policies but in the widespread, leftist radicalism on college campuses and public schools becoming hotbeds of social brainwashing to complement the deteriorization of standards and learning.
We are seeing the patently unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government into local education with dictates, mandates, and oversights by the U.S. Department of Education as it rapidly centralizes control of American education.
We are witnessing the leftist National Education Association busily engaged in discouraging parental choice and home-schooling and fully endorsing those federal intrusions while pushing for inclusion and diversity instead of more effective education.
We are burdened with local districts too feckless to denounce governmental encroachments and administrators too imbued with liberal doctrine to resist the leftward lurch toward the Marxist ideals embraced by our president.
To be sure, there were unmistakable signs of controlled centralization- indoctrination long before the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Since 2009, however, those signs have developed into a full-blown tsunami of Marxist doctrinaires and godless subversives acting under the guise of educators, all of whom were committed adherents to Obama’s twisted Marxist philosophy, many of whom signed on to his carefully-designed cult of personality.
At first, it was comical when schools like one in Hempstead, New York re-named themselves after Obama even before he was elected. Another in Asbury Park, New Jersey did likewise, before it was closed last July.
Throughout the nation, countless schools, localities, school districts, and streets changed names in honor of someone whose primary claim to fame was his (partial) blackness, whose father was a Marxist, and who has governed as if he dreams the collectivist dreams of his father.
Indoctrination of children comes in many colors. One favorite ploy is the use of songs.
A classic was the ditty composed by a black New Jersey teacher in 2009 who forced her class to sing a paean to their new god. Its unmemorable lyrics included, Mmm, mmm, mm!/Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again. . .” It gets worse with, ”Mmm, mmm, mm!/ Barack Hussein Obama/Yes!”
The parody is a vast improvement: “Mmm, mmm, mm!/Barack Hussein Obama/He said we must pay the man/To make this country strong again/Taking your money doesn’t matter/’cause we know He can spend it better. . .”
That song is old hat now. Obamamarxists have expanded their musical vistas to incorporate anarchic elements in their efforts to undermine values and seduce children into believing chaos and revolution were superior to order and civilized behavior. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12029.)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Her Excellency, Lady Obama
Her Excellency, Lady Obama
It’s hard to tell whether the SADHILL picture of the FLOTUS on IOwntheWorld.com looking as if she had a load in her pants has been photo-shopped or if Michelle Obama was getting ready to limbo.
Whatever the circumstances, the shot is emblematic of the controversy that has surrounded her for years. She has certainly not been controversial on the MSM which absolutely adores her and everything she does, says, and wears but more objective observers who know what our FLOTUS has done, said, and believes are aware she’s a trip.
I know, I know. It’s gauche to negatively comment on the wife of the president of the United States. Then again, America has never had a presidential wife like Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama–thank God!–and, unlike most of her predecessors, she invites criticism.
Not a very discreet–or stylish–woman, Mrs. Obama recently tipped her haughty hand when she conceded she rather likes being called “Your Excellency.”
Michelle appeared in a cameo role on the Nickleodeon sitcom, “iCarly” and a character refers to her as “Your Excellency.” Another character corrects him since it’s inappropriate to refer to First Ladies in such a manner. Cameo Michelle in turn corrects her by saying, “No, no, I kind of like it.”
And that she would.
“Your Excellency” melds very well in the imperial administration of her husband who recently announced his intent to rule by executive decree and bypass congressional authority. As his consort, Lady Michelle is clearly entitled to that description even if both she and Emperor Barack are oblivious of the fact the United States is a constitutional republic.
This isn’t the first time Lady O has displayed her ignorance of what the U.S. is all about. She has also caused deep suspicions as to her character, personality, and patriotism.
Her unguarded remark four years ago received little attention from the mainstream media but that didn’t mitigate how revealing it was.
Scant notice or not, along with her husband’s subconscious revelations of what he had planned for America, Michelle Obama’s 2008 confession told Americans enough to disqualify them from setting up residence in the White House.
Subsequent to Michelle’s gaffe, Barack conceded his socialistic philosophy of governance when he told “Joe the Plumber” he wanted to “share the wealth.” She, however, had outdone him in self-revelation by saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
That admission of hopelessly living in America for 44 years devoid of any pride in America came just before the Wisconsin primary in February, 2008. It was almost inexplicable considering her background.
Almost. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12004.)
It’s hard to tell whether the SADHILL picture of the FLOTUS on IOwntheWorld.com looking as if she had a load in her pants has been photo-shopped or if Michelle Obama was getting ready to limbo.
Whatever the circumstances, the shot is emblematic of the controversy that has surrounded her for years. She has certainly not been controversial on the MSM which absolutely adores her and everything she does, says, and wears but more objective observers who know what our FLOTUS has done, said, and believes are aware she’s a trip.
I know, I know. It’s gauche to negatively comment on the wife of the president of the United States. Then again, America has never had a presidential wife like Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama–thank God!–and, unlike most of her predecessors, she invites criticism.
Not a very discreet–or stylish–woman, Mrs. Obama recently tipped her haughty hand when she conceded she rather likes being called “Your Excellency.”
Michelle appeared in a cameo role on the Nickleodeon sitcom, “iCarly” and a character refers to her as “Your Excellency.” Another character corrects him since it’s inappropriate to refer to First Ladies in such a manner. Cameo Michelle in turn corrects her by saying, “No, no, I kind of like it.”
And that she would.
“Your Excellency” melds very well in the imperial administration of her husband who recently announced his intent to rule by executive decree and bypass congressional authority. As his consort, Lady Michelle is clearly entitled to that description even if both she and Emperor Barack are oblivious of the fact the United States is a constitutional republic.
This isn’t the first time Lady O has displayed her ignorance of what the U.S. is all about. She has also caused deep suspicions as to her character, personality, and patriotism.
Her unguarded remark four years ago received little attention from the mainstream media but that didn’t mitigate how revealing it was.
Scant notice or not, along with her husband’s subconscious revelations of what he had planned for America, Michelle Obama’s 2008 confession told Americans enough to disqualify them from setting up residence in the White House.
Subsequent to Michelle’s gaffe, Barack conceded his socialistic philosophy of governance when he told “Joe the Plumber” he wanted to “share the wealth.” She, however, had outdone him in self-revelation by saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”
That admission of hopelessly living in America for 44 years devoid of any pride in America came just before the Wisconsin primary in February, 2008. It was almost inexplicable considering her background.
Almost. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12004.)
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal
The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal
A popular misconception created by liberals, is that those dastardly conservatives are mean, nasty, and intolerant. The truth is precisely the opposite.
Little surprises me about liberal insensitivity and intolerance anymore even though some things they say, write, and do shock the conscience of anyone with a modicum of decency.
They have exhibited their true colors over the years, among other exhibitions castigating Sarah Palin for bearing in lieu of aborting her youngest child, calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” ceaseless fat jokes about Chris Christie, and on and on and on.
However, nothing has better exposed liberals-leftists-Democrats for what they are than more recent examples of crude, insensitive intolerance toward Rick Santorum.
Following in the footsteps of such libs as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher et al., political commentator Alan Colmes feels free to launch viciously outrageous ad hominem salvos at conservatives and, like his fellow bomb-throwers, gets away with it.
Last Monday, Colmes’ hurled his latest insult at GOP presidential contender Santorum during a Fox News segment when he predicted the former Pennsylvania senator’s Iowa surge wouldn’t last.
That evaluation was reasonable though incorrect, the basis for his view was unreasonable and downright nasty.
Colmes speculated that voters would turn on Santorum as soon as they “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”
Rich Lowry rightly and promptly jumped all over Colmes for his “cheap shot” in disgracefully impugning both Santorum and his family and misinterpreting Santorum’s actions after the premature birth and sadly-abbreviated two-hour lifespan of baby Gabriel Santorum in 1996.
As John Hayward opined on HumanEvents.com, Colmes’ comment “wasn’t a random slip of the tongue” and was planned to demonstrate how proudly astute he is. Hayward observed that, “For an ostensibly ‘tolerant liberal,’ Colmes is deeply, disturbingly obsessed with cultivating intolerance for this unusual act of devotion.”
“Ostensibly” is the key word. For liberals, sensitivity and tolerance are reserved for people who would have aborted Gabriel instead of attempting to save his life.
That same twisted, restricted sense of “tolerance” extends to how liberals in the mainstream media in America and abroad react to expressions of Muslim faith as opposed to comparable Christian observances.
Basically in the liberal nutshell: Christians bad, Muslims good.
Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, has been lambasted, ridiculed, and abused for what is termed, Tebowing, i.e. kneeling to thank God for his good fortune. Tebow, a committed Christian, pro-life, decent guy–all of which characteristics rankle liberals–feels it is his right and duty to publicly demonstrate his faith . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12002.)
A popular misconception created by liberals, is that those dastardly conservatives are mean, nasty, and intolerant. The truth is precisely the opposite.
Little surprises me about liberal insensitivity and intolerance anymore even though some things they say, write, and do shock the conscience of anyone with a modicum of decency.
They have exhibited their true colors over the years, among other exhibitions castigating Sarah Palin for bearing in lieu of aborting her youngest child, calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” ceaseless fat jokes about Chris Christie, and on and on and on.
However, nothing has better exposed liberals-leftists-Democrats for what they are than more recent examples of crude, insensitive intolerance toward Rick Santorum.
Following in the footsteps of such libs as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher et al., political commentator Alan Colmes feels free to launch viciously outrageous ad hominem salvos at conservatives and, like his fellow bomb-throwers, gets away with it.
Last Monday, Colmes’ hurled his latest insult at GOP presidential contender Santorum during a Fox News segment when he predicted the former Pennsylvania senator’s Iowa surge wouldn’t last.
That evaluation was reasonable though incorrect, the basis for his view was unreasonable and downright nasty.
Colmes speculated that voters would turn on Santorum as soon as they “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”
Rich Lowry rightly and promptly jumped all over Colmes for his “cheap shot” in disgracefully impugning both Santorum and his family and misinterpreting Santorum’s actions after the premature birth and sadly-abbreviated two-hour lifespan of baby Gabriel Santorum in 1996.
As John Hayward opined on HumanEvents.com, Colmes’ comment “wasn’t a random slip of the tongue” and was planned to demonstrate how proudly astute he is. Hayward observed that, “For an ostensibly ‘tolerant liberal,’ Colmes is deeply, disturbingly obsessed with cultivating intolerance for this unusual act of devotion.”
“Ostensibly” is the key word. For liberals, sensitivity and tolerance are reserved for people who would have aborted Gabriel instead of attempting to save his life.
That same twisted, restricted sense of “tolerance” extends to how liberals in the mainstream media in America and abroad react to expressions of Muslim faith as opposed to comparable Christian observances.
Basically in the liberal nutshell: Christians bad, Muslims good.
Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, has been lambasted, ridiculed, and abused for what is termed, Tebowing, i.e. kneeling to thank God for his good fortune. Tebow, a committed Christian, pro-life, decent guy–all of which characteristics rankle liberals–feels it is his right and duty to publicly demonstrate his faith . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12002.)
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The Self-Destruction of Barack Hussein Obama
The Self-Destruction of Barack Hussein Obama
There’s really no need for whoever wins the Republican nomination for president to campaign much at all. President Barack Hussein Obama has provided more than enough ammunition over the past three and a half years to send him back to Illinois, or Hawaii, or wherever he came from.
This is another story his mainstream media will downplay or bury but it doesn’t matter this time around–as long as the Republican National Committee has the funding to circulate its complilation of what is being called “the book” and to run powerful television ads like the one recently shown in Iowa.
In no way can that one minute video be construed as an attack ad, unless commentary by Bill Clinton (“We’re going in the wrong direction”), Maxine Waters (“We don’t know what the strategy is”), Chris Matthews (“Is this as good as it gets?”), and his admission of failure (“I don’t think people are better off than they were four years ago”) are considered attacks.
In addition, interspersed among those observations by Obama stalwarts are headlines blaring truths about poverty and unemployment which the president can deny only if he contends CBS, the Washington Post, and MSNBC are a bunch of liars.
As for “the book,” it contains some 500 pages of presidential quotations and video links highlighting the candidate and the president’s unfulfilled promises, pledges, and boasts. Though not yet released, WaPo somehow got hold of portions and ”reviewed” them. (http://wapo.st/uB81ri)
The review by an eminent member of Obama’s MSM described the untitled tome as “The new GOP playbook designed to take one of Obama’s great assets–the power of his oratory–and turn it into a liability.”
One could easily take issue with the claim of Obama’s oratorical power. His speeches are more akin to demagogic, telepromptered blatherings to worshipful, untutored audiences. In any event, “the power of his oratory” isn’t disputed in “the book.” The “liability” rests in what he has said, not in how he said it.
It’s unclear how much of “the book” WaPo had access to . . .
(Read more and see the RNC video at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11995.)
There’s really no need for whoever wins the Republican nomination for president to campaign much at all. President Barack Hussein Obama has provided more than enough ammunition over the past three and a half years to send him back to Illinois, or Hawaii, or wherever he came from.
This is another story his mainstream media will downplay or bury but it doesn’t matter this time around–as long as the Republican National Committee has the funding to circulate its complilation of what is being called “the book” and to run powerful television ads like the one recently shown in Iowa.
In no way can that one minute video be construed as an attack ad, unless commentary by Bill Clinton (“We’re going in the wrong direction”), Maxine Waters (“We don’t know what the strategy is”), Chris Matthews (“Is this as good as it gets?”), and his admission of failure (“I don’t think people are better off than they were four years ago”) are considered attacks.
In addition, interspersed among those observations by Obama stalwarts are headlines blaring truths about poverty and unemployment which the president can deny only if he contends CBS, the Washington Post, and MSNBC are a bunch of liars.
As for “the book,” it contains some 500 pages of presidential quotations and video links highlighting the candidate and the president’s unfulfilled promises, pledges, and boasts. Though not yet released, WaPo somehow got hold of portions and ”reviewed” them. (http://wapo.st/uB81ri)
The review by an eminent member of Obama’s MSM described the untitled tome as “The new GOP playbook designed to take one of Obama’s great assets–the power of his oratory–and turn it into a liability.”
One could easily take issue with the claim of Obama’s oratorical power. His speeches are more akin to demagogic, telepromptered blatherings to worshipful, untutored audiences. In any event, “the power of his oratory” isn’t disputed in “the book.” The “liability” rests in what he has said, not in how he said it.
It’s unclear how much of “the book” WaPo had access to . . .
(Read more and see the RNC video at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11995.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)