"Obama Admits He Is a Muslim"
Some rumors never die.
Many people still think FDR knew the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941 and did nothing to forestall the onslaught in order to get an excuse to enter World War II on the side England.
Many people still think Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone in the assassination of JFK in 1963 anymore than they think Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald in a Dallas police station without some assistance.
Many people still think the World Trade Center towers couldn’t have collapsed in 2001 solely because two fuel-laden airliners crashed into them.
And, many people still believe President Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim despite his oft-repeated contentions he is not.
We may never learn the full truth about FDR or JFK or the WTC and, if Obama and the mainstream media have their way, we may never learn whether the president is an adherent to the Islamic faith even though there is far more substance to that rumor than to previous conspiracies.
Much of that evidence is in the public domain but rarely has it been collected in a single source, a 10-minute video produced and directed by FeeltheChangeMedia.com titled “Obama Admits He Is a Muslim.” Reportedly, Sean Hannity has wanted to play it on air but has been pressured by the Obama administration into not doing so.
A collection of numerous clips from the last four years, the video features the president’s own words which, . . .
(Read more and see the video at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15215.)
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Our "Scary" President
Our "Scary" President
Less than four months into the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter and Gamble, posted an open letter to Obama on his blog which began, “Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.”
The original missive had been sent by the legendary corporate legend, noted public speaker, author, and teacher to the New York Times which chose not to print it although less distinguished publications did. It was subsequently accorded the seal of accuracy by leftist-leaning Snopes.com and only now has gone viral.
In retrospect, it’s understandable why the Times, a principal MSM Obama lackey, wanted no part of Pritchett’s letter but Obamians predictably came out in force to condemn Pritchett for his stupidity, ignorance, inaccuracies, and venom for daring to express his viewpoints on their Anointed One.
The letter reflects the author’s early and insightful realization that America was in serious trouble with our new leader and commander-in-chief.
Just months into Obama’s tenure, Pritchett noted Obama was unfit for office by virtue of his murky background, lack of experience and qualifications, radical past associations, arrogant sense of omnipotence and omniscience, his demonization of all opponents, and his extreme spending and health care plans which have since come to fruition.
In what is easily the scariest feature of Pritchett’s alarm was citing Obama’s mainstream media for its failure to vet candidate Obama as it had always done with previous presidential hopefuls and, since his election, has given him a free ride, never questioning his motives, never investigating his claims, never doubting his sincerity.
The remainder of Lou Pritchett’s letter follows: (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15150.)
Less than four months into the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, Lou Pritchett, a former vice president of Procter and Gamble, posted an open letter to Obama on his blog which began, “Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.”
The original missive had been sent by the legendary corporate legend, noted public speaker, author, and teacher to the New York Times which chose not to print it although less distinguished publications did. It was subsequently accorded the seal of accuracy by leftist-leaning Snopes.com and only now has gone viral.
In retrospect, it’s understandable why the Times, a principal MSM Obama lackey, wanted no part of Pritchett’s letter but Obamians predictably came out in force to condemn Pritchett for his stupidity, ignorance, inaccuracies, and venom for daring to express his viewpoints on their Anointed One.
The letter reflects the author’s early and insightful realization that America was in serious trouble with our new leader and commander-in-chief.
Just months into Obama’s tenure, Pritchett noted Obama was unfit for office by virtue of his murky background, lack of experience and qualifications, radical past associations, arrogant sense of omnipotence and omniscience, his demonization of all opponents, and his extreme spending and health care plans which have since come to fruition.
In what is easily the scariest feature of Pritchett’s alarm was citing Obama’s mainstream media for its failure to vet candidate Obama as it had always done with previous presidential hopefuls and, since his election, has given him a free ride, never questioning his motives, never investigating his claims, never doubting his sincerity.
The remainder of Lou Pritchett’s letter follows: (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15150.)
Monday, February 27, 2012
Oil Crises and Pond Scum
Oil Crises and Pond Scum
With gasoline and heating oil prices reaching and surpassing $4.00 a gallon and $5.00 and even $6.oo on the near horizon, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu should be given a nice round of applause for being so insightful in 2008 when he said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
We’re not quite there yet but we’re on the Chu trajectory.
Chu’s reasoning, if you can call it that, was that high gas prices would force Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars and move their residences closer to their places of employment.
A typically-liberal approach to social manipulation, Chu’s muddle-headed plan didn’t take into account the future fuel efficient Chevy Volt’s tendency to explode, the added cost of buying hybrids, or the impracticality of most Americans switching jobs during a jobs’ shortage.
Never confuse liberals with reality.
They say their ultimate goal is to end American reliance on foreign oil and toward that end Obama and Company refuse to open up ANWR to drilling, refuse to issue off-shore drilling permits, refuse to approve the Keystone XL pipeline due to environmental fears, loan billions to Mexico to fund offshore drilling off California’s coastline, and ridicules Republican demands to ”drill more.”
All are peculiar inactions unless one considers that Obamians are intent on crippling America and reducing us to the level of a Third World nation, an international adjunct of his pledge to share the wealth.
Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is Secretary Chu’s current concern that high oil prices threaten to stifle America’s and world economies.
Just imagine what will happen when United States’ gas prices reach European levels!
As a Nobel Prize winner, Chu must be correct in all he thinks, no? Then again, Barack Hussein Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and has been warring ever since.
This president, to whom we are shackled until at least January, 2013, has an enviable knack for interpreting realities . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14770.)
With gasoline and heating oil prices reaching and surpassing $4.00 a gallon and $5.00 and even $6.oo on the near horizon, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu should be given a nice round of applause for being so insightful in 2008 when he said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
We’re not quite there yet but we’re on the Chu trajectory.
Chu’s reasoning, if you can call it that, was that high gas prices would force Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars and move their residences closer to their places of employment.
A typically-liberal approach to social manipulation, Chu’s muddle-headed plan didn’t take into account the future fuel efficient Chevy Volt’s tendency to explode, the added cost of buying hybrids, or the impracticality of most Americans switching jobs during a jobs’ shortage.
Never confuse liberals with reality.
They say their ultimate goal is to end American reliance on foreign oil and toward that end Obama and Company refuse to open up ANWR to drilling, refuse to issue off-shore drilling permits, refuse to approve the Keystone XL pipeline due to environmental fears, loan billions to Mexico to fund offshore drilling off California’s coastline, and ridicules Republican demands to ”drill more.”
All are peculiar inactions unless one considers that Obamians are intent on crippling America and reducing us to the level of a Third World nation, an international adjunct of his pledge to share the wealth.
Perhaps the greatest irony in all this is Secretary Chu’s current concern that high oil prices threaten to stifle America’s and world economies.
Just imagine what will happen when United States’ gas prices reach European levels!
As a Nobel Prize winner, Chu must be correct in all he thinks, no? Then again, Barack Hussein Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and has been warring ever since.
This president, to whom we are shackled until at least January, 2013, has an enviable knack for interpreting realities . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14770.)
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Acts of Valor vs. the Critics
Acts of Valor vs. the Critics
“Valor” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery.” The only real issue concerning the just-released war film, “Act of Valor,” is that it is mistitled since it depicts not just one but multiple instances of amazing personal bravery.
I wouldn’t dare suggest movie critics don’t respect the courage of our military and, especially, among the Navy’s SEALS. At least none of the critics have said that–although most of them find fault with virtually everything else in the movie. Then, too, how could they criticize or say they abhor the military without sacrificing the illusion of their objectivity.
For a brief synopsis and trailers, see http://bit.ly/roegRu.
The chief critical objections to “Act of Valor” is that the principal characters are wooden and that the plot is contrived.
The former charge is somewhat true due to the fact that the protagonists are active duty SEALS and not professional actors, though we’ve all sat through stinko acting by pros. The contention that the story is unreal is more a reflection of critical biases than of actuality.
The narrative is complex, taking the viewer all over the globe and filled with unrelenting, ultra-violent action but I suspect left-leaning movie critics were far more exercised over the film’s themes than its plot.
Those themes incorporated not just military bravery but the reality of war, the essence of patriotism, the principle of idealism, and even a recogntion of God, none of which are favorite themes of America’s Left. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14853.)
“Valor” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery.” The only real issue concerning the just-released war film, “Act of Valor,” is that it is mistitled since it depicts not just one but multiple instances of amazing personal bravery.
I wouldn’t dare suggest movie critics don’t respect the courage of our military and, especially, among the Navy’s SEALS. At least none of the critics have said that–although most of them find fault with virtually everything else in the movie. Then, too, how could they criticize or say they abhor the military without sacrificing the illusion of their objectivity.
For a brief synopsis and trailers, see http://bit.ly/roegRu.
The chief critical objections to “Act of Valor” is that the principal characters are wooden and that the plot is contrived.
The former charge is somewhat true due to the fact that the protagonists are active duty SEALS and not professional actors, though we’ve all sat through stinko acting by pros. The contention that the story is unreal is more a reflection of critical biases than of actuality.
The narrative is complex, taking the viewer all over the globe and filled with unrelenting, ultra-violent action but I suspect left-leaning movie critics were far more exercised over the film’s themes than its plot.
Those themes incorporated not just military bravery but the reality of war, the essence of patriotism, the principle of idealism, and even a recogntion of God, none of which are favorite themes of America’s Left. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14853.)
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Oscar, Oscar, Oscar
Oscar, Oscar, Oscar
Fastidious Felix Unger of TV’s “The Odd Couple” fame often expressed his frustration with his slovenly roomie Oscar Madison by sighing, “Oscar, Oscar, Oscar,” a frustration that could just as well apply to the Academy of Motion Picture Awards for its blatant liberalism and tireless adherence to politically correctness.
I, for one, don’t give a tinker’s damn who or what wins an Oscar at the 84th Academy Awards of Merit festivities on Sunday.
Not that it matters but no one seems to know the derivation of the term “Oscar.” What does matter is that the Academy Awards show is meaningless except insofar as it is probably the most vivid example of American shallowness, exalting movie stars to the level of demigods as exemplars of the best America has to offer the world and featuring some of the most superficial, most vapid human beings on the planet applauding themselves.
Let’s face it, actors and actresses gain fame and fortune by pretending they are someone else, mostly by acting as if they were whores or roues, or confused wives or philandering husbands, or by portraying average people caught up in life’s angst.
All that pretending eventually warps minds.
Nowadays, with some exceptions, few films depicting normality are contenders for Oscars and fewer actors and actresses nominated for acting awards are depicted as normal nor are they normal in real life. That is, unless you consider normality widespread use of illegal substances, bed-hopping, multiple marriages, and out of wedlock pregnancies as normal.
Is it any wonder movie-going has fallen off drastically or that American culture is slipping down the toilet with Hollywood as a role model?
Tinseltown’s elitists tend to choose as winners of Best Actor Awards people who reflect their own prejudices and leftist political views and pick the Best Picture on the same bases.
Years ago, Hollywood produced outstanding motion pictures, . . .(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14508.)
Fastidious Felix Unger of TV’s “The Odd Couple” fame often expressed his frustration with his slovenly roomie Oscar Madison by sighing, “Oscar, Oscar, Oscar,” a frustration that could just as well apply to the Academy of Motion Picture Awards for its blatant liberalism and tireless adherence to politically correctness.
I, for one, don’t give a tinker’s damn who or what wins an Oscar at the 84th Academy Awards of Merit festivities on Sunday.
Not that it matters but no one seems to know the derivation of the term “Oscar.” What does matter is that the Academy Awards show is meaningless except insofar as it is probably the most vivid example of American shallowness, exalting movie stars to the level of demigods as exemplars of the best America has to offer the world and featuring some of the most superficial, most vapid human beings on the planet applauding themselves.
Let’s face it, actors and actresses gain fame and fortune by pretending they are someone else, mostly by acting as if they were whores or roues, or confused wives or philandering husbands, or by portraying average people caught up in life’s angst.
All that pretending eventually warps minds.
Nowadays, with some exceptions, few films depicting normality are contenders for Oscars and fewer actors and actresses nominated for acting awards are depicted as normal nor are they normal in real life. That is, unless you consider normality widespread use of illegal substances, bed-hopping, multiple marriages, and out of wedlock pregnancies as normal.
Is it any wonder movie-going has fallen off drastically or that American culture is slipping down the toilet with Hollywood as a role model?
Tinseltown’s elitists tend to choose as winners of Best Actor Awards people who reflect their own prejudices and leftist political views and pick the Best Picture on the same bases.
Years ago, Hollywood produced outstanding motion pictures, . . .(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14508.)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Vlad Putin Praises Russian Treachery
Vlad Putin Praises Russian Treachery
On first meeting then-President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in 2001, President George W. Bush said of Putin that, ”I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. He added, “I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
Putin has proven himself straightforward, but trustworthy? I don’t know what Bush detected in his soul but the former head of the USSR’s secret police, the KGB, could be described as trustworthy only from a Russian perspective.
Appointed Prime Minister by figurehead President Dmitry Medvedev, Putin has shown repeatedly that he’s a lowlife but outdid himself and shamed his country by boasting about the USSR’s thievery during the Cold War.
Beset by mass demonstrations opposing his campaign for reelection as president on March 4th, Putin has been stirring up anti-Americanism reminiscent of his KGB days. Although a repugnant campaign tactic, that’s almost understandable in view of the decline and fall of the Russian empire, the obvious effect of that collapse on the Russian people, and their need to focus on something other than their loss of superpower status.
However, Putin arousing old animosities is far from bragging about his nation’s treachery.
In any war, hot or cold, every country resorts to underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Few nations brag about them. Using as an excuse for the USSR’s massive theft of America’s nuclear secrets after WWII, Putin said it was done because Russia didn’t want the United States to be the sole atomic power on the planet.
Contrary to historical record, the thievery wasn’t conducted so that the USSR could have a shot at world domination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14257.)
On first meeting then-President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in 2001, President George W. Bush said of Putin that, ”I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. He added, “I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
Putin has proven himself straightforward, but trustworthy? I don’t know what Bush detected in his soul but the former head of the USSR’s secret police, the KGB, could be described as trustworthy only from a Russian perspective.
Appointed Prime Minister by figurehead President Dmitry Medvedev, Putin has shown repeatedly that he’s a lowlife but outdid himself and shamed his country by boasting about the USSR’s thievery during the Cold War.
Beset by mass demonstrations opposing his campaign for reelection as president on March 4th, Putin has been stirring up anti-Americanism reminiscent of his KGB days. Although a repugnant campaign tactic, that’s almost understandable in view of the decline and fall of the Russian empire, the obvious effect of that collapse on the Russian people, and their need to focus on something other than their loss of superpower status.
However, Putin arousing old animosities is far from bragging about his nation’s treachery.
In any war, hot or cold, every country resorts to underhanded methods to gain an advantage. Few nations brag about them. Using as an excuse for the USSR’s massive theft of America’s nuclear secrets after WWII, Putin said it was done because Russia didn’t want the United States to be the sole atomic power on the planet.
Contrary to historical record, the thievery wasn’t conducted so that the USSR could have a shot at world domination. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=14257.)
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Some Things You Were Wrong About
Some Things You Were Wrong About
Contrary to popular perceptions, things aren’t always what they appear to be, especially when it comes to politics.
Politicians and media commentators have a unique ability to reinterpret reality so that, by the time they’re finished with their spinning, it’s difficult to distinguish the real from the fantastical and truth from baldfaced lies. They don’t change what’s real and what’s true but they often succeed in so muddying the waters that the average observer doesn’t see the difference between reality, truth, and prevarication.
A classic case in point is former President Bill Clinton who apparently confused his fellow Democrats to such an extent that lying under oath was not an impeachable offense serious enough to find him guilty as charged. Every Democrat senator, even those who had denounced his actions, voted in 1998 to acquit.
If nothing else, Democrats stick together.
Obama White House chief flack, Jay Carney, knows the Chicago art of deliberate confusion, obfuscation, and subterfuge as if he were born to the task.
Despite all contradictory evidence, Carney made the startling claim at a press briefing that the president didn’t really reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The proposed project, which would have funneled millions of barrels of Canadian oil into the United States and relieved the price pressure on heating oil and gasoline, failed because those rascally Republicans made it impossible for Obama to approve Keystone.
And here we cynics thought Obama was catering to his wacko environmental buddies!
Even ABC’s Jake Tapper was incredulous. Tapper asked Carney, ”How can you say that . . . if the President turned down the Keystone pipeline? And you blame the Republicans for making it political.”
The White House Press Secretary’s byzantine explanation for his reality-bending is too complex to summarize here.
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell is as committed a Clintonian supporter as Nina Burleigh but, instead of offering the 42nd president oral sex like Burleigh, offered an amazing, retroactive defense of the Clinton clan.
Commenting on PBS’s surprisingly-honest production of “Clinton,” Mitchell, who never encountered a Clinton she didn’t love, said she felt “nostalgia” for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, denounced the opposition to Clinton as “vicious,” and bemoaned the actual existence of Hillary’s fabrication of a “vast right wing conspiracy. . . There really was an enemy.”
No one expects objectivity from most MSNBC commentators but that political paranoia, articulated without a shred of proof of the existence of any conservative conspirators, is so far over the top that one suspects Mitchell was reciting from the Clinton playbook.
How any conspirator could plant semen on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, could inspire the Comeback Kid to parse the meaning of the verb “is,” or could make Mitchell’s hero lie under oath is beyond me, unless that Democrat thing about fudging reality is considered.
That same studied unreality is evidently a major factor in how the Obama administration is dealing with the unemployment problem and the American economy. With little concrete evidence to support either contention, we’re told both are improving, a view comparable to VP Biden’s characterization of 2010 as the year of a “Summer of Recovery.”
The president keeps boasting about somehow creating millions of jobs with his $787 billion stimulus although no one seems to know what and where they are. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13923.)
Contrary to popular perceptions, things aren’t always what they appear to be, especially when it comes to politics.
Politicians and media commentators have a unique ability to reinterpret reality so that, by the time they’re finished with their spinning, it’s difficult to distinguish the real from the fantastical and truth from baldfaced lies. They don’t change what’s real and what’s true but they often succeed in so muddying the waters that the average observer doesn’t see the difference between reality, truth, and prevarication.
A classic case in point is former President Bill Clinton who apparently confused his fellow Democrats to such an extent that lying under oath was not an impeachable offense serious enough to find him guilty as charged. Every Democrat senator, even those who had denounced his actions, voted in 1998 to acquit.
If nothing else, Democrats stick together.
Obama White House chief flack, Jay Carney, knows the Chicago art of deliberate confusion, obfuscation, and subterfuge as if he were born to the task.
Despite all contradictory evidence, Carney made the startling claim at a press briefing that the president didn’t really reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The proposed project, which would have funneled millions of barrels of Canadian oil into the United States and relieved the price pressure on heating oil and gasoline, failed because those rascally Republicans made it impossible for Obama to approve Keystone.
And here we cynics thought Obama was catering to his wacko environmental buddies!
Even ABC’s Jake Tapper was incredulous. Tapper asked Carney, ”How can you say that . . . if the President turned down the Keystone pipeline? And you blame the Republicans for making it political.”
The White House Press Secretary’s byzantine explanation for his reality-bending is too complex to summarize here.
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell is as committed a Clintonian supporter as Nina Burleigh but, instead of offering the 42nd president oral sex like Burleigh, offered an amazing, retroactive defense of the Clinton clan.
Commenting on PBS’s surprisingly-honest production of “Clinton,” Mitchell, who never encountered a Clinton she didn’t love, said she felt “nostalgia” for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, denounced the opposition to Clinton as “vicious,” and bemoaned the actual existence of Hillary’s fabrication of a “vast right wing conspiracy. . . There really was an enemy.”
No one expects objectivity from most MSNBC commentators but that political paranoia, articulated without a shred of proof of the existence of any conservative conspirators, is so far over the top that one suspects Mitchell was reciting from the Clinton playbook.
How any conspirator could plant semen on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, could inspire the Comeback Kid to parse the meaning of the verb “is,” or could make Mitchell’s hero lie under oath is beyond me, unless that Democrat thing about fudging reality is considered.
That same studied unreality is evidently a major factor in how the Obama administration is dealing with the unemployment problem and the American economy. With little concrete evidence to support either contention, we’re told both are improving, a view comparable to VP Biden’s characterization of 2010 as the year of a “Summer of Recovery.”
The president keeps boasting about somehow creating millions of jobs with his $787 billion stimulus although no one seems to know what and where they are. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13923.)
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Irrelevance of Obama's Religion
The Irrelevance of Obama's Religion
According to Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you, and once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
That fact has become relevant in the campaign for the Republican nomination for the presidency ever since Sen. Rick Santorum called into question Barack Obama’s religion when Santorum alleged the president was motivated by “some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible” and also referred to Obama’s “radical Islamic policies.”
First of all, let’s stipulate that religion has no place in American politics–with one important exception: If someone has misstated his religion and misled the electorate, the issue becomes not one of religion but of truth and honesty.
Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim father, Barack Hussein Obama, Senior, conferred his Islamic middle name, derived from Hussein Ibn Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, on Barack Hussein Obama, Junior. At least in the eyes of Islam, our president is a Muslim, although he has said that “Hussein” is an African name and that he is a Christian.
The case should be closed but isn’t for a variety of reasons.
The president has said that his Kenyan father denied abandoned his Islamic faith before he abandoned his family. He was raised–in part–by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, an atheist.
Much of his upbringing was provided by his maternal grandparents after his mother married another Muslim, Lolo Soetero, took her son with her to live his formative years in Muslim Indonesia where he attended a Wahabi school in Jakarta and ultimately turned young Barry over to her parents while she pursued her education and career.
All that abandonment had to have warped her child but none of the above proves Obama is a closet Muslim or a religious hypocrite who followed in his father’s footsteps by turning his back on Islam.
The president’s collegiate life is still cloaked in mystery although it is known that he had Muslim roommates and travelled to Indonesia during his years at Columbia University and subsequently visited his father’s Muslim family in Kenya. And, of course, he fondly wrote of dreams inherited from the Marxist father he resented for dumping his family but, again, none of that proves he is really a Muslim and not a Christian.
Antagonizing America’s only ally in the Mideast, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13822.)
According to Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you, and once a Muslim, always a Muslim.
That fact has become relevant in the campaign for the Republican nomination for the presidency ever since Sen. Rick Santorum called into question Barack Obama’s religion when Santorum alleged the president was motivated by “some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible” and also referred to Obama’s “radical Islamic policies.”
First of all, let’s stipulate that religion has no place in American politics–with one important exception: If someone has misstated his religion and misled the electorate, the issue becomes not one of religion but of truth and honesty.
Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim father, Barack Hussein Obama, Senior, conferred his Islamic middle name, derived from Hussein Ibn Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, on Barack Hussein Obama, Junior. At least in the eyes of Islam, our president is a Muslim, although he has said that “Hussein” is an African name and that he is a Christian.
The case should be closed but isn’t for a variety of reasons.
The president has said that his Kenyan father denied abandoned his Islamic faith before he abandoned his family. He was raised–in part–by his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, an atheist.
Much of his upbringing was provided by his maternal grandparents after his mother married another Muslim, Lolo Soetero, took her son with her to live his formative years in Muslim Indonesia where he attended a Wahabi school in Jakarta and ultimately turned young Barry over to her parents while she pursued her education and career.
All that abandonment had to have warped her child but none of the above proves Obama is a closet Muslim or a religious hypocrite who followed in his father’s footsteps by turning his back on Islam.
The president’s collegiate life is still cloaked in mystery although it is known that he had Muslim roommates and travelled to Indonesia during his years at Columbia University and subsequently visited his father’s Muslim family in Kenya. And, of course, he fondly wrote of dreams inherited from the Marxist father he resented for dumping his family but, again, none of that proves he is really a Muslim and not a Christian.
Antagonizing America’s only ally in the Mideast, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13822.)
Gays on the Attack and under Attack
Gays on the Attack and under Attack
Few people would contest the fact that homosexuals have made enormous strides over the last forty years in gaining both acceptablility in America’s straight world, advances unimaginable prior to the Stonewall Riots in 1969.
Those upheavals in New York City’s Greenwich Village in turn led homosexuals to promote the misnomer “gay” and emboldened them to successfully intimidate the American Psychiatric Association into changing its long-standing diagnosis of homosexuality as a deviant mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to a variation on the norm.
Forced re-definitions rarely result in alterating realities.
Still, especially in the last decade, gays have succeeded in changing reality and making themselves very visible, if not normal.
. They have become virtual staples on television sitcoms and have evolved into an almost-obsessive subject on crime shows such as NBC’s “Law and Order.”
. They have won the right to marry in six states and have been integrated into the United States military.
. They have won the right to adopt babies and young children in some states despite evidence those kids are often sexually abused.
. They have a president who has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and who has filled his administration with more outed gays than you could shake a feather boa at.
. They sponsor Gay Pride Weeks and gay parades in a number of cities, weeks and parades filled with obscene public exhibitionism and campaigns to seduce young people into their aberrant lifestyle.
(All of the above have been detailed and documented in earlier posts on this blogsite.)
When Barack Hussein Obama’s Justice Department announced last Friday that it would not defend a case involving a constitutional challenge to same-sex mariages, the DoJ virtually assured the nation that DOMA will be repealed should Obama win a second term. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13681.)
Few people would contest the fact that homosexuals have made enormous strides over the last forty years in gaining both acceptablility in America’s straight world, advances unimaginable prior to the Stonewall Riots in 1969.
Those upheavals in New York City’s Greenwich Village in turn led homosexuals to promote the misnomer “gay” and emboldened them to successfully intimidate the American Psychiatric Association into changing its long-standing diagnosis of homosexuality as a deviant mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to a variation on the norm.
Forced re-definitions rarely result in alterating realities.
Still, especially in the last decade, gays have succeeded in changing reality and making themselves very visible, if not normal.
. They have become virtual staples on television sitcoms and have evolved into an almost-obsessive subject on crime shows such as NBC’s “Law and Order.”
. They have won the right to marry in six states and have been integrated into the United States military.
. They have won the right to adopt babies and young children in some states despite evidence those kids are often sexually abused.
. They have a president who has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and who has filled his administration with more outed gays than you could shake a feather boa at.
. They sponsor Gay Pride Weeks and gay parades in a number of cities, weeks and parades filled with obscene public exhibitionism and campaigns to seduce young people into their aberrant lifestyle.
(All of the above have been detailed and documented in earlier posts on this blogsite.)
When Barack Hussein Obama’s Justice Department announced last Friday that it would not defend a case involving a constitutional challenge to same-sex mariages, the DoJ virtually assured the nation that DOMA will be repealed should Obama win a second term. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13681.)
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Prepping for Apocalypses
Prepping for Apocalypses
Preparing for an apocalypse can take on various forms. They can range from building elaborate, underground structures stockpiled with enough provisions to last an individual or a family for months or more to digging a hole in that same ground and covering yourself with a tarp.
Both approaches make as much sense. Besides being much cheaper, the hole technique would in all probability be about as effective in securing one’s survival as the million dollar building.
However, in no way is that analysis intended to diminish the magnitude of the multiple threats to Americans’ safety–and sanity.
From the dangers of nuclear terrorism that could result in widespread devastation to the perils of economic policies that endanger the foundations of society to natural catastrophes which have frequently wreaked havoc in the world to pandemics that could claim the lives of millions, it’s perfectly understandable that many people are getting nervous.
That nervousness is compounded for those who subscribe to the alleged prediction by ancient Mayans that we shouldn’t make plans for December 22nd, 2012 since the Earth will almost literally be turned upside-down on December 21st, which would make Christmas shopping a silly effort.
It should be noted the Mayans also made predictions for 2017 and 2025 and their culture is long extinct.
Still, the nervousness is being translated into a rebirth of survivalism, a phenomenon dating back to the fifties when fearful people began constructing bomb shelters to shield them from a thermonuclear attack by the Soviets and we schoolkids practiced hiding under our desks to save our lives.
Alternately known as preppers or suvivalists, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12993.)
Preparing for an apocalypse can take on various forms. They can range from building elaborate, underground structures stockpiled with enough provisions to last an individual or a family for months or more to digging a hole in that same ground and covering yourself with a tarp.
Both approaches make as much sense. Besides being much cheaper, the hole technique would in all probability be about as effective in securing one’s survival as the million dollar building.
However, in no way is that analysis intended to diminish the magnitude of the multiple threats to Americans’ safety–and sanity.
From the dangers of nuclear terrorism that could result in widespread devastation to the perils of economic policies that endanger the foundations of society to natural catastrophes which have frequently wreaked havoc in the world to pandemics that could claim the lives of millions, it’s perfectly understandable that many people are getting nervous.
That nervousness is compounded for those who subscribe to the alleged prediction by ancient Mayans that we shouldn’t make plans for December 22nd, 2012 since the Earth will almost literally be turned upside-down on December 21st, which would make Christmas shopping a silly effort.
It should be noted the Mayans also made predictions for 2017 and 2025 and their culture is long extinct.
Still, the nervousness is being translated into a rebirth of survivalism, a phenomenon dating back to the fifties when fearful people began constructing bomb shelters to shield them from a thermonuclear attack by the Soviets and we schoolkids practiced hiding under our desks to save our lives.
Alternately known as preppers or suvivalists, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12993.)
The Case FOR Iranian Nukes
The Case FOR Iranian Nukes
Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.
Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.
Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.
Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.
Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.
Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.
Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.
It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)
Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.
Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.
Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.
Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.
Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.
Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.
Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.
It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)
Friday, February 17, 2012
Christians Lose, Muslims Win in the War on Religion
Christians Lose, Muslims Win in the War on Religion
President Barack Hussein Obama’s war against Christianity and the free exercise of religion is being bolstered by a variety of reinforcements while Christianity is being denigrated and Islam is promoted in America’s public schools.
New York City’s Mayor for Life, Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of the World Trade Center mosque and Muslim’s praying in the city’s public schools, has banned churches from using those same schools to hold Christian services. The vapid billionare mayor wasn’t forced to defend his position on Muslim rights and based his opposition to Christian rights on the misinterpretation of the non-existent First Amendment provision for a strict separation of church and state.
Bloomberg was undeterred by the fact churches renting areas of public schools throughout the nation is a non-issue nor by a temporary injunction issued by a U.S. District Court.
James Madison Elementary School in Sheboygan, WI also supported Obama’s selective war on religion by interdicting a second grader’s Valentine’s Day greeting to his classmates.
Little Dexter Thielhelm was censored when he tried to give his fellow kidlets the simple Valentine message that “Jesus Loves You” wrapped with candy and the Bible verse, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Horror of horrors!
District Assistant Superintendent Mark Holtzman explained the rationale for the confiscation of Dexter’s good wishes.
Holtzman tried to clarify the matter by saying that the Christian Valentines, for which Dexter’s siblings were also censored, because, “Otherwise we would be allowing anybody to give out personal messages or values. If somebody wanted to put anti-Semitism in there . . . people would be outraged by that.”
Say what?
Advising kids that Jesus loves them would open the floodgates to anti-Semites sending Jewish kids the word that God hates them? Sending innocent, religious Valentines is in any way tantamount to persecution? Offering hope in lieu of despair is unacceptable?
More likely, Holtzman and the Sheboygan School District have enlisted in Obama’s anti-Christian army and in Obama’s Christian intolerance.
Out in Colorado’s Grand Junction High School, there are tons of tolerance, not toward Christianity but towards Islam. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13455.)
President Barack Hussein Obama’s war against Christianity and the free exercise of religion is being bolstered by a variety of reinforcements while Christianity is being denigrated and Islam is promoted in America’s public schools.
New York City’s Mayor for Life, Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of the World Trade Center mosque and Muslim’s praying in the city’s public schools, has banned churches from using those same schools to hold Christian services. The vapid billionare mayor wasn’t forced to defend his position on Muslim rights and based his opposition to Christian rights on the misinterpretation of the non-existent First Amendment provision for a strict separation of church and state.
Bloomberg was undeterred by the fact churches renting areas of public schools throughout the nation is a non-issue nor by a temporary injunction issued by a U.S. District Court.
James Madison Elementary School in Sheboygan, WI also supported Obama’s selective war on religion by interdicting a second grader’s Valentine’s Day greeting to his classmates.
Little Dexter Thielhelm was censored when he tried to give his fellow kidlets the simple Valentine message that “Jesus Loves You” wrapped with candy and the Bible verse, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Horror of horrors!
District Assistant Superintendent Mark Holtzman explained the rationale for the confiscation of Dexter’s good wishes.
Holtzman tried to clarify the matter by saying that the Christian Valentines, for which Dexter’s siblings were also censored, because, “Otherwise we would be allowing anybody to give out personal messages or values. If somebody wanted to put anti-Semitism in there . . . people would be outraged by that.”
Say what?
Advising kids that Jesus loves them would open the floodgates to anti-Semites sending Jewish kids the word that God hates them? Sending innocent, religious Valentines is in any way tantamount to persecution? Offering hope in lieu of despair is unacceptable?
More likely, Holtzman and the Sheboygan School District have enlisted in Obama’s anti-Christian army and in Obama’s Christian intolerance.
Out in Colorado’s Grand Junction High School, there are tons of tolerance, not toward Christianity but towards Islam. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13455.)
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Skewed Liberal Perspectives
Skewed Liberal Perspectives
We all have opinions. Some of us like white meat, others dark. Some of us lean Republican, others Democrat. Some of us prefer the ocean, others the mountains. Some of us make sense, others don’t.
Few of us have huge forums on which to share our opinions, and influence, millions.
Four liberals, four of legions who spew illiberal deception, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, singer Tony Bennett, and Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowski do have bully pulpits and use them to articulate some of the most cockamamie views imaginable and many people believe them.
For example, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum isn’t the perfect candidate for the office of the presidency of the United States of America–and who is?–but is he in any way comparable to the murderous dictator of the U.S.S.R., Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, or to George Orwell’s Big Brother?
Martin Bashir, a Brit of Pakistani origin with the temerity to attack Americans, thinks so.
Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt regarded Stalin as a good buddy, “Uncle Joe,” despite Stalin’s record as as a mass murderer of millions, and Bashir considers Sen. Santorum as little different.
Betraying his leftist intolerance of conservative opinions on homosexuality and ignoring Obama’s efforts to deny Americans’ freedom of religion, the MSNBC anchor accused Santorum of being a totalitarian along the lines of Stalin and Big Brother.
Bashir suggested Santorum was acting like a theocrat and like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984 by opposing the president’s Obamacare initiatives. Ironically, Bashir had earlier warned Newt Gingrich to stop using hateful language “before someone gets killed.”
Talk about hateful!
Sorry, Martin, if anyone is acting like a totalitarian despot and being hateful, it’s President Obama who has shown as total contempt for our Constitution and nation as you do. Pakistan International Airlines has daily flights to Islamabad. Consider hopping one.
No stranger to bizarre views and statements, Nancy Pelosi has expressed similarly peculiar sentiments concerning everything from the legislative process to ousted Obama “green czar,” Van Jones, and to the anarchistic Occupy movement. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13207.)
We all have opinions. Some of us like white meat, others dark. Some of us lean Republican, others Democrat. Some of us prefer the ocean, others the mountains. Some of us make sense, others don’t.
Few of us have huge forums on which to share our opinions, and influence, millions.
Four liberals, four of legions who spew illiberal deception, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, singer Tony Bennett, and Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowski do have bully pulpits and use them to articulate some of the most cockamamie views imaginable and many people believe them.
For example, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum isn’t the perfect candidate for the office of the presidency of the United States of America–and who is?–but is he in any way comparable to the murderous dictator of the U.S.S.R., Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, or to George Orwell’s Big Brother?
Martin Bashir, a Brit of Pakistani origin with the temerity to attack Americans, thinks so.
Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt regarded Stalin as a good buddy, “Uncle Joe,” despite Stalin’s record as as a mass murderer of millions, and Bashir considers Sen. Santorum as little different.
Betraying his leftist intolerance of conservative opinions on homosexuality and ignoring Obama’s efforts to deny Americans’ freedom of religion, the MSNBC anchor accused Santorum of being a totalitarian along the lines of Stalin and Big Brother.
Bashir suggested Santorum was acting like a theocrat and like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984 by opposing the president’s Obamacare initiatives. Ironically, Bashir had earlier warned Newt Gingrich to stop using hateful language “before someone gets killed.”
Talk about hateful!
Sorry, Martin, if anyone is acting like a totalitarian despot and being hateful, it’s President Obama who has shown as total contempt for our Constitution and nation as you do. Pakistan International Airlines has daily flights to Islamabad. Consider hopping one.
No stranger to bizarre views and statements, Nancy Pelosi has expressed similarly peculiar sentiments concerning everything from the legislative process to ousted Obama “green czar,” Van Jones, and to the anarchistic Occupy movement. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13207.)
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Black Racism, the N-word, and Samuel L. Jackson
Black Racism, the N-word, and Samuel L. Jackson
Abraham Lincoln’s recognition that blacks and whites could never co-exist in America is rarely referenced today any more than are his efforts to re-locate former slaves to other nations during the Civil War or his similar post war plans which were thwarted by his assassination.
He envisioned the future, the severely-strained relationship of the two races that exists well into the twenty first century in the United States despite the 2008 election of an African-American as president and despite Barack Hussein Obama’s declarations that the era of racial tensions in the country had come to an end.
If anything, Obama’s election exacerbated those tensions, a reality that comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with his history, background, and associations.
In fact, many suspect that, inspired by his philosopical mentor, the late extremist radical Saul Alinsky, Obama feeds on and encourages divisions of all sorts as demonstrated by his support of the Occupy anarchists in order to solidify his power and to appease his leftist and African-American bases.
One certainty is that Barack Obama has done nothing to heal racial divisiveness as illustrated by the black actor, Samuel L. Jackson.
Jackson’s recent, proud admission in Ebony that he voted for Obama “because he was black” merely reinforced the common perception that most of the 93% of African-Americans who voted Obama in 2008 did so for the same reason.
Contrary to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s hopes that people be judged on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin, Jackson and the 93% voted by skin color, vivid proof of an underlying racism in the black community which would be condemned were the reverse true.
African-Americans have made huge strides over the last fifty years in every area of American life but, apparently, not huge enough to convince Jackson that the USA is not a white racist society. The black actor gained fame and fortune in Hollywood due largely to white fans who constitute the vast majority of moviegoers yet he left no doubt he still harbored bitter feelings toward whites.
Over what, he left very unclear.
Jackson’s Ebony interview was chock full of profanities and frequent use of the N-word, the only word banned from the English language because it carries so much politically incorrect baggage. Like NBA star Charles Barkley, Jackson never said he was a role model but, still, that’s one helluva example to set for black youth.
In Jackson’s interview, he reiterated sentiments already expressed by Barack and Michelle Obama who have also cited “the way we look” for political advantage.
With the vulgarities and the N-word bleeped since this is a family blog and to forestall investigation by the PC police, Jackson honestly and ignorantly said: “I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people–because they look like them. That’s American politics, pure and simple. . . ” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13053.)
Abraham Lincoln’s recognition that blacks and whites could never co-exist in America is rarely referenced today any more than are his efforts to re-locate former slaves to other nations during the Civil War or his similar post war plans which were thwarted by his assassination.
He envisioned the future, the severely-strained relationship of the two races that exists well into the twenty first century in the United States despite the 2008 election of an African-American as president and despite Barack Hussein Obama’s declarations that the era of racial tensions in the country had come to an end.
If anything, Obama’s election exacerbated those tensions, a reality that comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with his history, background, and associations.
In fact, many suspect that, inspired by his philosopical mentor, the late extremist radical Saul Alinsky, Obama feeds on and encourages divisions of all sorts as demonstrated by his support of the Occupy anarchists in order to solidify his power and to appease his leftist and African-American bases.
One certainty is that Barack Obama has done nothing to heal racial divisiveness as illustrated by the black actor, Samuel L. Jackson.
Jackson’s recent, proud admission in Ebony that he voted for Obama “because he was black” merely reinforced the common perception that most of the 93% of African-Americans who voted Obama in 2008 did so for the same reason.
Contrary to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s hopes that people be judged on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin, Jackson and the 93% voted by skin color, vivid proof of an underlying racism in the black community which would be condemned were the reverse true.
African-Americans have made huge strides over the last fifty years in every area of American life but, apparently, not huge enough to convince Jackson that the USA is not a white racist society. The black actor gained fame and fortune in Hollywood due largely to white fans who constitute the vast majority of moviegoers yet he left no doubt he still harbored bitter feelings toward whites.
Over what, he left very unclear.
Jackson’s Ebony interview was chock full of profanities and frequent use of the N-word, the only word banned from the English language because it carries so much politically incorrect baggage. Like NBA star Charles Barkley, Jackson never said he was a role model but, still, that’s one helluva example to set for black youth.
In Jackson’s interview, he reiterated sentiments already expressed by Barack and Michelle Obama who have also cited “the way we look” for political advantage.
With the vulgarities and the N-word bleeped since this is a family blog and to forestall investigation by the PC police, Jackson honestly and ignorantly said: “I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people–because they look like them. That’s American politics, pure and simple. . . ” (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13053.)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Who Needs Death Panels When We Have Bioethicists?
Who Needs Death Panels When We Have Bioethicists?
The topic of death panels–essentially, Obamacare bureaucrats deciding whether an individual should live or not–has died down somewhat but there’s a new buzz buzzing which could make them redundant.
President Barack Hussein Obama and his minions refused to concede that Obamacare incorporated death panels, just as they denied abortion services would be a feature of the new health care law, and Sarah Palin and others were lambasted and ridiculed for suggesting those ideas.
Now, two bioethicists–scholars who study and propound on contemporary scientific and medical ethical controversies, are advocating theories which are even more outrageous than death panels: harvesting the organs of living but seriously disabled human beings.
Nothing is surprising anymore in America’s thriving culture of death.
In an article titled, “What Makes Killing Wrong?” in the January 2012 edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, bioethicists Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G. Miller posit that death is morally indistinguishable from total disability and thus it is not immoral to use the disabled as organ farms. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12997.)
The topic of death panels–essentially, Obamacare bureaucrats deciding whether an individual should live or not–has died down somewhat but there’s a new buzz buzzing which could make them redundant.
President Barack Hussein Obama and his minions refused to concede that Obamacare incorporated death panels, just as they denied abortion services would be a feature of the new health care law, and Sarah Palin and others were lambasted and ridiculed for suggesting those ideas.
Now, two bioethicists–scholars who study and propound on contemporary scientific and medical ethical controversies, are advocating theories which are even more outrageous than death panels: harvesting the organs of living but seriously disabled human beings.
Nothing is surprising anymore in America’s thriving culture of death.
In an article titled, “What Makes Killing Wrong?” in the January 2012 edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, bioethicists Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G. Miller posit that death is morally indistinguishable from total disability and thus it is not immoral to use the disabled as organ farms. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12997.)
The Obamas Pimp-out Their Kids
The Obamas Pimp-out Their Kids
President Barack Hussein Obama and his lovely bride jointly decided that daddy’s career would never supersede their desire for their childrens’ anonymity.
Some years ago, the POTUS admirably declared that Sasha and Malia Obama would and should be off limits, never to be used for political purposes, never utilized to buttress his popularity or win votes.
Apparently toward that end, Obama enrolled the girls at the “Harvard of Washington,” the uber exclusive Sidwell Friends School not to shield them from the horrors of D.C. educational system, mind you, but in order that they not be seen as political pawns attending the mostly African-American horrors to win favor in black communities.
Jimmy Carter took that risk with young Amy Carter and we all know what happened to him!
Likewise, Obama published his childrens’ book Of Thee I Sing, A Letter to My Daughters in 2010 solely as a patriotic tribute to heroes in American history since he loves his country and his kids so much. Featuring an illustration of Malia and Sasha prancing along the grass on the cover with First Dog, Bo, should not be interpreted as exploiting the First Daughters but rather as, well, simply a book cover.
Now, however, it’s a presidential election year.
2012 is easily the most significant election in our lifetimes and the Obamas are pulling out all stops, throwing all caution to the winds, and revoking all public resolves like protecting Malia and Sasha from the limelight and political exploitation by planning to pimp them out in the interests of their father winning four more years to destroy the country.
Barack Hussein Obama’s bitter half, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama, has suggested the First Daughters will play a major role in the upcoming campaign, contentions of exploitation be damned.
The FLOTUS made clear that 10 year old Sasha and 13 year old Malia, understandably agitated by pop’s election uncertainties and how his possible defeat would affect them, will . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12904.)
President Barack Hussein Obama and his lovely bride jointly decided that daddy’s career would never supersede their desire for their childrens’ anonymity.
Some years ago, the POTUS admirably declared that Sasha and Malia Obama would and should be off limits, never to be used for political purposes, never utilized to buttress his popularity or win votes.
Apparently toward that end, Obama enrolled the girls at the “Harvard of Washington,” the uber exclusive Sidwell Friends School not to shield them from the horrors of D.C. educational system, mind you, but in order that they not be seen as political pawns attending the mostly African-American horrors to win favor in black communities.
Jimmy Carter took that risk with young Amy Carter and we all know what happened to him!
Likewise, Obama published his childrens’ book Of Thee I Sing, A Letter to My Daughters in 2010 solely as a patriotic tribute to heroes in American history since he loves his country and his kids so much. Featuring an illustration of Malia and Sasha prancing along the grass on the cover with First Dog, Bo, should not be interpreted as exploiting the First Daughters but rather as, well, simply a book cover.
Now, however, it’s a presidential election year.
2012 is easily the most significant election in our lifetimes and the Obamas are pulling out all stops, throwing all caution to the winds, and revoking all public resolves like protecting Malia and Sasha from the limelight and political exploitation by planning to pimp them out in the interests of their father winning four more years to destroy the country.
Barack Hussein Obama’s bitter half, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama, has suggested the First Daughters will play a major role in the upcoming campaign, contentions of exploitation be damned.
The FLOTUS made clear that 10 year old Sasha and 13 year old Malia, understandably agitated by pop’s election uncertainties and how his possible defeat would affect them, will . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12904.)
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Dead Men Talking, Walking, and Choosing
Dead Men Talking, Walking, and Choosing
Capital punishment in America, the execution by the government of a felon convicted by a jury of his peers for grievous crimes, usually murder, is widely regarded to be as barbaric as the crimes themselves. The proffered argument is that it makes no sense to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.
There is some truth to that position, that the state is acting as viciously as the murderer and that executions serves no purpose other than societal vengeance. There is also some truth to the view that such punishment is merited based on the extreme nature of the crime and it serves as a deterrent for future murderers.
Valid points of view have been posed on both sides, none of which have resolved the issue.
In any event, in the United States and in many of the other 58 countries that still execute criminals, capital convictions have become almost farcical. Due to mandated appeals processes, the convicted are housed, fed, and afforded other perks for decades and the methods used today to execute them are usually far more humane than the murders they committed.
American death row inmates are well aware of their rights and privileges. Many flaunt them, one even got to choose his method of execution.
Danny Robbie Hendley, Jr., found guilty of killing a 17 year old girl in 2009 in North Carolina and suspected of killing two other women, knows he has many years to live. He seems to relish life on death row and utilizes his time to taunt the families of his victims.
In an open letter published in The Gaston Gazette, Hendley brazenly wrote, ”Is the public aware that I am a gentleman of lesiure, watching color TV in the A.C., reading, takeing [sic] naps at will, eating three well balanced hot meals a day. I’m housed in a building that connects to the new 55 million dollar hospital with round the clock free medical care 24/7. . . Kill me if you can, suckers. . . Ha! Ha! Ha!"
Why Hendley sent that letter to the Gazette is obvious: He is an unrepentant snake. Why the Gazette saw fit to print his vile, sneering rant is a question which should be directed to the editors.
Another good question is why California treats convicted rapists, murderers, thieves, et al. better than it does taxpayers.
Inmates at San Quentin are not only getting free room, board, and health care. They are also indulged with medical attention many Californians, 25% of whom have no medical insurance coverage, are denied. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12827&preview=true.)
Capital punishment in America, the execution by the government of a felon convicted by a jury of his peers for grievous crimes, usually murder, is widely regarded to be as barbaric as the crimes themselves. The proffered argument is that it makes no sense to kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.
There is some truth to that position, that the state is acting as viciously as the murderer and that executions serves no purpose other than societal vengeance. There is also some truth to the view that such punishment is merited based on the extreme nature of the crime and it serves as a deterrent for future murderers.
Valid points of view have been posed on both sides, none of which have resolved the issue.
In any event, in the United States and in many of the other 58 countries that still execute criminals, capital convictions have become almost farcical. Due to mandated appeals processes, the convicted are housed, fed, and afforded other perks for decades and the methods used today to execute them are usually far more humane than the murders they committed.
American death row inmates are well aware of their rights and privileges. Many flaunt them, one even got to choose his method of execution.
Danny Robbie Hendley, Jr., found guilty of killing a 17 year old girl in 2009 in North Carolina and suspected of killing two other women, knows he has many years to live. He seems to relish life on death row and utilizes his time to taunt the families of his victims.
In an open letter published in The Gaston Gazette, Hendley brazenly wrote, ”Is the public aware that I am a gentleman of lesiure, watching color TV in the A.C., reading, takeing [sic] naps at will, eating three well balanced hot meals a day. I’m housed in a building that connects to the new 55 million dollar hospital with round the clock free medical care 24/7. . . Kill me if you can, suckers. . . Ha! Ha! Ha!"
Why Hendley sent that letter to the Gazette is obvious: He is an unrepentant snake. Why the Gazette saw fit to print his vile, sneering rant is a question which should be directed to the editors.
Another good question is why California treats convicted rapists, murderers, thieves, et al. better than it does taxpayers.
Inmates at San Quentin are not only getting free room, board, and health care. They are also indulged with medical attention many Californians, 25% of whom have no medical insurance coverage, are denied. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12827&preview=true.)
Friday, February 10, 2012
No Messing with JFK!
No Messing with JFK!
It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature. In the perceptions of Democrats, it’s even less nice to mess with Dem-liberal icons such as America’s 35th and first Irish-Catholic president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
I wasn’t of legal voting age in 1960 and didn’t live in Chicago where such legalities didn’t much matter, so I didn’t vote for JFK although, at 18, I thought Jack Kennedy was the greatest thing to come on the scene since sliced Irish soda bread.
I maintained that immature viewpoint through Jack’s narrow election victory and until he proved he was more liberal than he was presidential, not anywhere near the mold of America’s current extreme leftist chief executive but still far from what I had anticipated of him.
As it subsequently turned out, JFK was more in Bill Clinton’s mold.
In my admittedly harshly though accurately-titled article, “JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher,” I discussed Mimi Beardsley Alford’s new book, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK, which details the author’s experiences as a 19 year old Kennedy White House intern in 1962. (http://bit.ly/ygir7l)
According to Alford’s recollections, Jack was indeed a whoremaster, pimp, and drug pusher who seduced her in Jackie Kennedy’s private bedroom, carried on a lengthy affair with her, farmed her out to perform oral sex on his buddy, Dave Powers–while Jack watched–and suggested she take his prescribed drugs, which she refused to do.
Of course, fifty years later, there is little possibility of verifying Mimi Alford’s allegations and hence no hindrances on the media alleging it’s all baloney. There are no other living witnesses and, regrettably, no Monica Lewinsky blue dress dna evidence, evidence that wouldn’t deter JFK idolators, anyway.
Following the usual script, liberals are now busily attacking both Alford’s remembrances–which would be extremely difficult to fabricate–and her motives in publishing her book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12722.)
It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature. In the perceptions of Democrats, it’s even less nice to mess with Dem-liberal icons such as America’s 35th and first Irish-Catholic president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
I wasn’t of legal voting age in 1960 and didn’t live in Chicago where such legalities didn’t much matter, so I didn’t vote for JFK although, at 18, I thought Jack Kennedy was the greatest thing to come on the scene since sliced Irish soda bread.
I maintained that immature viewpoint through Jack’s narrow election victory and until he proved he was more liberal than he was presidential, not anywhere near the mold of America’s current extreme leftist chief executive but still far from what I had anticipated of him.
As it subsequently turned out, JFK was more in Bill Clinton’s mold.
In my admittedly harshly though accurately-titled article, “JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher,” I discussed Mimi Beardsley Alford’s new book, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK, which details the author’s experiences as a 19 year old Kennedy White House intern in 1962. (http://bit.ly/ygir7l)
According to Alford’s recollections, Jack was indeed a whoremaster, pimp, and drug pusher who seduced her in Jackie Kennedy’s private bedroom, carried on a lengthy affair with her, farmed her out to perform oral sex on his buddy, Dave Powers–while Jack watched–and suggested she take his prescribed drugs, which she refused to do.
Of course, fifty years later, there is little possibility of verifying Mimi Alford’s allegations and hence no hindrances on the media alleging it’s all baloney. There are no other living witnesses and, regrettably, no Monica Lewinsky blue dress dna evidence, evidence that wouldn’t deter JFK idolators, anyway.
Following the usual script, liberals are now busily attacking both Alford’s remembrances–which would be extremely difficult to fabricate–and her motives in publishing her book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12722.)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Clarifications on Voter Fraud, Polar Bears, Clint Eastwood, God, and Obamacare
Clarifications on Voter Fraud, Polar Bears, Clint Eastwood, God, and Obamacare
Anyone who believes life is simple and uncomplicated, who believes our world and national news and events aren’t always in flux, who believes the status quo will always be the status, must also regularly tune into Comedy Central liberal comedians Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart to find out what’s happening on our planet and its import.
Believe it or not, based on admittedly anecdotal experience, many moronic people do turn to Colbert and Stewart as well as to Barack Hussein Obama’s MSM for their news.
For those among us who are not brain-dead, a few clarifications:
. Allegations that Hillary Clinton’s vast right wing conspirators are dedicated to exposing extremist left wing electoral turpitude have been proven correct in the swing state of Florida. In a single district, amost a hundred illegal aliens were registered to vote in the general election in November. Lee County Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington said, “It could change the whole complexion of the election.”
Considering which candidate is the principal supporter of illegals’ “rights,” guessing they were planning to vote for Barack Hussein Obama would be a safe bet.
. Claims that polar bears have been suffering during our era of alleged global-warming and shrinking ice caps have, once again, been proven false. Actually, those bears are thriving and the ice caps have been frozen in place even in the Himalayas, despite experts.’ contentions in 2009 that they wouldn’t exist in 2035.
In lieu of those realities, we can be certain the purveyors of climate panic will soon revert to their seventies’ warnings of a new Ice Age as a fear-substitute in order to keep the world terrified and Al Gore’s wallet stuffed . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12671.)
Anyone who believes life is simple and uncomplicated, who believes our world and national news and events aren’t always in flux, who believes the status quo will always be the status, must also regularly tune into Comedy Central liberal comedians Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart to find out what’s happening on our planet and its import.
Believe it or not, based on admittedly anecdotal experience, many moronic people do turn to Colbert and Stewart as well as to Barack Hussein Obama’s MSM for their news.
For those among us who are not brain-dead, a few clarifications:
. Allegations that Hillary Clinton’s vast right wing conspirators are dedicated to exposing extremist left wing electoral turpitude have been proven correct in the swing state of Florida. In a single district, amost a hundred illegal aliens were registered to vote in the general election in November. Lee County Supervisor of Elections Sharon Harrington said, “It could change the whole complexion of the election.”
Considering which candidate is the principal supporter of illegals’ “rights,” guessing they were planning to vote for Barack Hussein Obama would be a safe bet.
. Claims that polar bears have been suffering during our era of alleged global-warming and shrinking ice caps have, once again, been proven false. Actually, those bears are thriving and the ice caps have been frozen in place even in the Himalayas, despite experts.’ contentions in 2009 that they wouldn’t exist in 2035.
In lieu of those realities, we can be certain the purveyors of climate panic will soon revert to their seventies’ warnings of a new Ice Age as a fear-substitute in order to keep the world terrified and Al Gore’s wallet stuffed . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12671.)
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Liberal War on the Constitution and Religion
The Liberal War on the Constitution and Religion
The battle launched by Barack Hussein Obama’s administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions violate their collective consciences and church law on artificial birth control has less to do with contraception than with liberal disdain for America’s Constitution.
The ongoing uproar over contraception simply reinforces the disdain shown when our alleged “constitutional scholar” president arrogantly complained to Matt Lauer that Congress was impeding his insatiable lust for power and autocratic rule by performing checks and balances on the executive branch and by his earlier declaration that he would, unconstitutionally, bypass the legislative branch to accomplish his goals.
The president was recently joined by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in his public contempt for the US Constitution.
Arch-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on Egyptian television, praised other national constitutions, but said of ours, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” As a member of SCOTUS, Ginsburg is charged with interpreting that 225 year old document yet doesn’t consider it worthy of emulation.
As a reminder to the constitutional scholar . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12673.)
The battle launched by Barack Hussein Obama’s administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions violate their collective consciences and church law on artificial birth control has less to do with contraception than with liberal disdain for America’s Constitution.
The ongoing uproar over contraception simply reinforces the disdain shown when our alleged “constitutional scholar” president arrogantly complained to Matt Lauer that Congress was impeding his insatiable lust for power and autocratic rule by performing checks and balances on the executive branch and by his earlier declaration that he would, unconstitutionally, bypass the legislative branch to accomplish his goals.
The president was recently joined by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in his public contempt for the US Constitution.
Arch-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared on Egyptian television, praised other national constitutions, but said of ours, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” As a member of SCOTUS, Ginsburg is charged with interpreting that 225 year old document yet doesn’t consider it worthy of emulation.
As a reminder to the constitutional scholar . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12673.)
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Jackie Evancho--an Angel Sings!
Jackie Evancho--an Angel Sings!
It’s indeed a rarity when an angel deigns to sing to us mere mortals but the eleven year old “classical crossover” artist with a soprano voice, Jackie Avancho, did just that with her recent single, “To Believe,” an overtly Christian religious song which puts the lie to any cynical belief that all ’tween girls are silly.
Listen to little Ms. Avancho’s incredibly sensitive and beautiful rendition of the song with a voice twice her age, compliments of the usually far less sentimental IOwntheWorld.com: http://bit.ly/xFaocF.
“Crossover” artists like Josh Groban are said to bridge the gap between classical and pop music. Jackie Evancho manages, at eleven, to bridge the gap between mere song and sincere prayer. She also plays the violin, piano–and sews!
It’s not clear whether Jackie cleans up her room and makes her bed but, based on everything else known about her, she probably does–and takes out the trash and maybe even solves the riddles of the universe!
“To Believe” concludes: “To believe in a day/ When hunger and war will pass away/ To have the hope amidst despair/ That every sparrow’s counted/ That you hear each cry and listen to each Prayer/ {Hear each cry and listen to each prayer} Help us do Your will oh Father/ In the name of all that’s true/ And we’ll see in one another/ The loving image of You.”
The complete song, including printed lyrics, can be heard at IOTW.
I have no idea what the future holds for Jackie Avancho. We can only hope she never loses her angelic soul or her angel voice.
(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12657)
It’s indeed a rarity when an angel deigns to sing to us mere mortals but the eleven year old “classical crossover” artist with a soprano voice, Jackie Avancho, did just that with her recent single, “To Believe,” an overtly Christian religious song which puts the lie to any cynical belief that all ’tween girls are silly.
Listen to little Ms. Avancho’s incredibly sensitive and beautiful rendition of the song with a voice twice her age, compliments of the usually far less sentimental IOwntheWorld.com: http://bit.ly/xFaocF.
“Crossover” artists like Josh Groban are said to bridge the gap between classical and pop music. Jackie Evancho manages, at eleven, to bridge the gap between mere song and sincere prayer. She also plays the violin, piano–and sews!
It’s not clear whether Jackie cleans up her room and makes her bed but, based on everything else known about her, she probably does–and takes out the trash and maybe even solves the riddles of the universe!
“To Believe” concludes: “To believe in a day/ When hunger and war will pass away/ To have the hope amidst despair/ That every sparrow’s counted/ That you hear each cry and listen to each Prayer/ {Hear each cry and listen to each prayer} Help us do Your will oh Father/ In the name of all that’s true/ And we’ll see in one another/ The loving image of You.”
The complete song, including printed lyrics, can be heard at IOTW.
I have no idea what the future holds for Jackie Avancho. We can only hope she never loses her angelic soul or her angel voice.
(http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12657)
JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher
JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher
President Barack Hussein Obama may trample on the Constitution, invoke the name of Jesus Christ to further his re-election, and deny Catholics religious freedom with Obamacare–and that’s only in the last week–but, to his credit, has not turned the White House into a whorehouse unlike some of his fellow Democrats.
Lyndon Baines Johnson was a noted womanizer and James Earl Carter admitted to lusting in his heart but apparently neither used the executive mansion as a bawdy house. William Jefferson Clinton and John Fitzgerald Kennedy did.
Of course, Clinton’s sexual abandon and paramours were legendary prior to his winning election in 1992, even if his mainstream media chose to conceal them from the public. His trysts that stained the Oval Office carpet, Monica Lewinsky’s famous blue dress, and the dignity of the presidency could almost have been expected.
Kennedy was known as a lady’s man in Washington before he became America’s 35th president. However, his various assignations with Marilyn Monroe and other women were not revealed until well after his assassination, a delay once again attritutable to the liberal MSM covering for one of their own.
The truth will eventually out and Mimi Beardsley Alford has now outed Jack as a seducer of teenagers, a drug pusher, and a pimp, all harsh descriptions, all confirmed by Alford’s new tell-all, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK.
Such belated revelations are often as trashy as they are fictional and Mrs. Alford’s motivations in publishing her secret of half a century must be called into question considering the embarrassment it has to cause for her children and grandchildren.
Who knows? She may need the money, she may need to clear her aging conscience, she may still be hurting from Jack’s ultimate rejection fifty years back, she may want revenge, or she may simply be trying to rectify the historical record that JFK was a family man. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12649.)
President Barack Hussein Obama may trample on the Constitution, invoke the name of Jesus Christ to further his re-election, and deny Catholics religious freedom with Obamacare–and that’s only in the last week–but, to his credit, has not turned the White House into a whorehouse unlike some of his fellow Democrats.
Lyndon Baines Johnson was a noted womanizer and James Earl Carter admitted to lusting in his heart but apparently neither used the executive mansion as a bawdy house. William Jefferson Clinton and John Fitzgerald Kennedy did.
Of course, Clinton’s sexual abandon and paramours were legendary prior to his winning election in 1992, even if his mainstream media chose to conceal them from the public. His trysts that stained the Oval Office carpet, Monica Lewinsky’s famous blue dress, and the dignity of the presidency could almost have been expected.
Kennedy was known as a lady’s man in Washington before he became America’s 35th president. However, his various assignations with Marilyn Monroe and other women were not revealed until well after his assassination, a delay once again attritutable to the liberal MSM covering for one of their own.
The truth will eventually out and Mimi Beardsley Alford has now outed Jack as a seducer of teenagers, a drug pusher, and a pimp, all harsh descriptions, all confirmed by Alford’s new tell-all, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK.
Such belated revelations are often as trashy as they are fictional and Mrs. Alford’s motivations in publishing her secret of half a century must be called into question considering the embarrassment it has to cause for her children and grandchildren.
Who knows? She may need the money, she may need to clear her aging conscience, she may still be hurting from Jack’s ultimate rejection fifty years back, she may want revenge, or she may simply be trying to rectify the historical record that JFK was a family man. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12649.)
Monday, February 6, 2012
Bullying Susan G. Komen
Bullying Susan G. Komen
The huge flap over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision to cease funding Planned Parenthood of America, PPOA, and then to rescind that recission is nothing more than a tempest in the abortion teapot. It’s also an excellent example of the power of bullying.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is as dedicated to curing breast cancer as Planned Parenthood is dedicated to killing the pre-born. However, when the foundation pulled its funding of PPOA last week, it was a wake-up call, if one were needed, that libs are far more concerned for preserving abortion rights than they are with preserving the lives of women.
Under a torrent of incensed bullying attacks, the foundation quickly seemed to reverse its decision though not before libs launched a withering onslaught of abuse of Komen.
The bullying died down following the apparent reversal, which is ironic since the foundation simply decided to adhere to its previous commitment to pay PPOA over half a million dollars but would provide no additional funding because, despite its advertising, the nation’s most profitable and prolific abortionists doesn’t give a damn about breast cancer.
Komen caved to the bullying tactics then made it clear it won’t support organizations not engaged in breast cancer research or treatment or if they are proven guilty of criminal activities,
As background, Susan Komen died at age 36 in 1980, a victim of the plague of breast cancer after her sister Nancy Goodman Brinker swore to her that she would do all she could to eradicate that scourge. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12591.)
The huge flap over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision to cease funding Planned Parenthood of America, PPOA, and then to rescind that recission is nothing more than a tempest in the abortion teapot. It’s also an excellent example of the power of bullying.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure is as dedicated to curing breast cancer as Planned Parenthood is dedicated to killing the pre-born. However, when the foundation pulled its funding of PPOA last week, it was a wake-up call, if one were needed, that libs are far more concerned for preserving abortion rights than they are with preserving the lives of women.
Under a torrent of incensed bullying attacks, the foundation quickly seemed to reverse its decision though not before libs launched a withering onslaught of abuse of Komen.
The bullying died down following the apparent reversal, which is ironic since the foundation simply decided to adhere to its previous commitment to pay PPOA over half a million dollars but would provide no additional funding because, despite its advertising, the nation’s most profitable and prolific abortionists doesn’t give a damn about breast cancer.
Komen caved to the bullying tactics then made it clear it won’t support organizations not engaged in breast cancer research or treatment or if they are proven guilty of criminal activities,
As background, Susan Komen died at age 36 in 1980, a victim of the plague of breast cancer after her sister Nancy Goodman Brinker swore to her that she would do all she could to eradicate that scourge. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12591.)
Sunday, February 5, 2012
SuperBowl XLVI, Big Highs, Two Notable Lows
SuperBowl XLVI, Big Highs, Two Notable Lows
After weeks of incessant hype which became as tedious as political blatherings and debates, the annual American spectacle, the Super Bowl, is finally over.
For those living under some rock or maybe in Massachusetts, the New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots in the forty-sixth edition of the Super Bowl by eking out a 21-17 victory thanks to Tom Coughlin’s coaching, Eli Manning’s unflappability, and Mario Manningham proving he knows where his feet are.
To Giant fans, those were the highest points of Super Bowl XLVI–the only association with Roman numerals most of America’s schoolkids ever get–although there were others, including a typically-amazing halftime show concluding with Madonna vaporized in a cloud of smoke.
Unfortunately, that vaporization was a special effect.
There were no intentional “wardrobe malfunctions” comparable to Janet Jackson’s nipple display during halftime in 2004 but NBC’s did feature the only low moment of the show when the alleged entertainer M.I.A. showed she has even less class than she has talent.
During Madonna’s song “Give Me All Your Luvin,” M.I.A. displayed the middle finger of her left hand and obscenely cursed at either Madonna, at the hundred million children and adults watching the performance, or both.
NBC and the NFL quickly offered explanatory defenses.
NBC disingenuously contended, “It was a spontaneous gesture that our delay system caught late [to bleep].” The network didn’t explain how M.I.A.’s flipping the bird and mouthing an expletive could possibly be interpreted as ”a spontaneous gesture.”
The NFL’s response . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12632.)
After weeks of incessant hype which became as tedious as political blatherings and debates, the annual American spectacle, the Super Bowl, is finally over.
For those living under some rock or maybe in Massachusetts, the New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots in the forty-sixth edition of the Super Bowl by eking out a 21-17 victory thanks to Tom Coughlin’s coaching, Eli Manning’s unflappability, and Mario Manningham proving he knows where his feet are.
To Giant fans, those were the highest points of Super Bowl XLVI–the only association with Roman numerals most of America’s schoolkids ever get–although there were others, including a typically-amazing halftime show concluding with Madonna vaporized in a cloud of smoke.
Unfortunately, that vaporization was a special effect.
There were no intentional “wardrobe malfunctions” comparable to Janet Jackson’s nipple display during halftime in 2004 but NBC’s did feature the only low moment of the show when the alleged entertainer M.I.A. showed she has even less class than she has talent.
During Madonna’s song “Give Me All Your Luvin,” M.I.A. displayed the middle finger of her left hand and obscenely cursed at either Madonna, at the hundred million children and adults watching the performance, or both.
NBC and the NFL quickly offered explanatory defenses.
NBC disingenuously contended, “It was a spontaneous gesture that our delay system caught late [to bleep].” The network didn’t explain how M.I.A.’s flipping the bird and mouthing an expletive could possibly be interpreted as ”a spontaneous gesture.”
The NFL’s response . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12632.)
Saturday, February 4, 2012
When Is Racism not Racism?
When Is Racism not Racism?
The answer to the title question of when racism is not racism is as transparent as the Obama administration is opaque: When the MSM or officials don’t want it to be.
Racism is almost always deemed racism when it involves perceived or actual attacks by whites against blacks yet rarely described as such when blacks physically and verbally abuse whites. Examples of the both social anomalies abound with the former getting by far the most media attention and the latter being mostly ignored.
For example, when the “Reverends” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton display their keen awareness of white racism in virtually everything they disagree with, the MSM reports those perceptions sans comment as if they were biblical truth.
However, when Sen. Charles Grassley proposed making habitual drunk driving a deportable offense for aliens, it was interpreted as racist designed to discriminate against illegals such as President Obama’s drunken Uncle Omar.
When I posted an article titled, “Wisdom from the FLOTUS” examining Michelle Obama’s background, positions, and statements, a commenter strongly defended our First Lady and felt obliged to conclude in his defense, “I think racism is at least a possibility.” (http://bit.ly/wprRoO)
White racism always seems, at the minimum, “a possibility” when whites are accused of assaulting or even offering objective critiques of African-Americans. Black racism is virtually never considered when blacks attack whites, a fact of American life substantiated by the renowned African-American economics professor and poltical commentator, Walter E. Williams.
In an especially honest assessment of the state of racial justice in America today, Prof. Williams said, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators. If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps.”
Truer words were never spoken as are the words spoken by Chicago Tribune Gerould Kern who conceded that “Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune . . . deliberately censored information about black crime for political reasons. . . to ‘guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.’ ” (http://bit.ly/mtX5AM)
Foolish me! I always thought the mission of the news media, the very basis for its existence, was to report the news fairly and objectively, not to pick and choose what and how to report predicated on “political reasons,” i.e., what is PC.
Now, granted, the American news media has always had a slant from colonial times through the twenty-first century.
Today, the Washington Times and Fox News lean toward the right, the conservative viewpoint, while the vast majority of news outlets, from the Washington Post to the New York Times to the L.A. Times to CNN to MSNBC report with a liberal slant often so distorted that it’s difficult to distinguish news from editorials.
Those distortions are especially noteworthy with regard to racial attacks, as Walter E. Williams pointed out and as Gerould Kern verified. Two recent events illustrate that reality. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12582.)
The answer to the title question of when racism is not racism is as transparent as the Obama administration is opaque: When the MSM or officials don’t want it to be.
Racism is almost always deemed racism when it involves perceived or actual attacks by whites against blacks yet rarely described as such when blacks physically and verbally abuse whites. Examples of the both social anomalies abound with the former getting by far the most media attention and the latter being mostly ignored.
For example, when the “Reverends” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton display their keen awareness of white racism in virtually everything they disagree with, the MSM reports those perceptions sans comment as if they were biblical truth.
However, when Sen. Charles Grassley proposed making habitual drunk driving a deportable offense for aliens, it was interpreted as racist designed to discriminate against illegals such as President Obama’s drunken Uncle Omar.
When I posted an article titled, “Wisdom from the FLOTUS” examining Michelle Obama’s background, positions, and statements, a commenter strongly defended our First Lady and felt obliged to conclude in his defense, “I think racism is at least a possibility.” (http://bit.ly/wprRoO)
White racism always seems, at the minimum, “a possibility” when whites are accused of assaulting or even offering objective critiques of African-Americans. Black racism is virtually never considered when blacks attack whites, a fact of American life substantiated by the renowned African-American economics professor and poltical commentator, Walter E. Williams.
In an especially honest assessment of the state of racial justice in America today, Prof. Williams said, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators. If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps.”
Truer words were never spoken as are the words spoken by Chicago Tribune Gerould Kern who conceded that “Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune . . . deliberately censored information about black crime for political reasons. . . to ‘guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.’ ” (http://bit.ly/mtX5AM)
Foolish me! I always thought the mission of the news media, the very basis for its existence, was to report the news fairly and objectively, not to pick and choose what and how to report predicated on “political reasons,” i.e., what is PC.
Now, granted, the American news media has always had a slant from colonial times through the twenty-first century.
Today, the Washington Times and Fox News lean toward the right, the conservative viewpoint, while the vast majority of news outlets, from the Washington Post to the New York Times to the L.A. Times to CNN to MSNBC report with a liberal slant often so distorted that it’s difficult to distinguish news from editorials.
Those distortions are especially noteworthy with regard to racial attacks, as Walter E. Williams pointed out and as Gerould Kern verified. Two recent events illustrate that reality. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12582.)
Friday, February 3, 2012
War, Religion, Politics, and the Super Bowl
War, Religion, Politics, and the Super Bowl
Two centuries ago, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote that “the world is too much with us,” essentially meaning that even in the early 1800′s humanity was too consumed with material things and the affairs of the day to smell the roses.
The alternative is escapism, ignoring what’s going on in the world around us, which can be worse than materialism.
Some subjects like war and peace, politics and all its ramifications, religion and all its controversy, politics and all its dirt, and the Super Bowl with all its manic craziness just can’t be avoided. Hence, I’m offering a few random, unsolicited commonsensical solutions for current issues. They are admittedly far from original but are thoughts worth repeating.
IRAN: Except maybe for some Iranians, few sane people believe the Islamic Republic of Iran is developing a nuclear program at the same time it’s developing short�and long-range missile technology in the interests of providing nuclear-generated electricity in a land with more oil resources than indoor toilets.
As they stall for time to execute�their avowed plan to eradicate Israel from the face of the planet and ignite a worldwide cataclysm to bring about the End Times, Iran’s president and ayatollahs must be chuckling in their hummus as America’s president continues his asinine quest for dialogue with maniacs in lieu of confronting the reality that Islam is thirsting for the Apocalypse.
COMMON SENSE SOLUTION: Not that they need it, but Israel should forget waiting for a green light from America’s Waffler-in-Chief and launch a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the Iranian threat sooner rather than later. More stalling will only make the job harder and the US will be blamed no matter what happens.
War sucks but it sure beats Armageddon.
POLITICS: The inherently dirty business of politics has gotten dirtier by the week in the past year with the president’s attack/slime machine in overgear and Republicans engage in internecine warfare which only serves to furnish campaign fodder for Obama and to enhance the egos of the GOP candidates.
The president’s billion dollar re-election effort, ably-assisted by his mainstream media, has already dismantled Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, and Rick Perry and is prepared to destroy whomever is eventually nominated to oppose him. The remaining hopefuls can only bring on greater damage to themselves and to the GOP if they allow the bloodletting to persist.
When the Muslim-tainted Obama resorted to citing Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule as inspirations for class warfare and Obamacare at the National Prayer Breakfast, they had to realize he will stop at nothing in order to get the opportunity for four more years to drag the nation into oblivion. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12461.)
Two centuries ago, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote that “the world is too much with us,” essentially meaning that even in the early 1800′s humanity was too consumed with material things and the affairs of the day to smell the roses.
The alternative is escapism, ignoring what’s going on in the world around us, which can be worse than materialism.
Some subjects like war and peace, politics and all its ramifications, religion and all its controversy, politics and all its dirt, and the Super Bowl with all its manic craziness just can’t be avoided. Hence, I’m offering a few random, unsolicited commonsensical solutions for current issues. They are admittedly far from original but are thoughts worth repeating.
IRAN: Except maybe for some Iranians, few sane people believe the Islamic Republic of Iran is developing a nuclear program at the same time it’s developing short�and long-range missile technology in the interests of providing nuclear-generated electricity in a land with more oil resources than indoor toilets.
As they stall for time to execute�their avowed plan to eradicate Israel from the face of the planet and ignite a worldwide cataclysm to bring about the End Times, Iran’s president and ayatollahs must be chuckling in their hummus as America’s president continues his asinine quest for dialogue with maniacs in lieu of confronting the reality that Islam is thirsting for the Apocalypse.
COMMON SENSE SOLUTION: Not that they need it, but Israel should forget waiting for a green light from America’s Waffler-in-Chief and launch a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the Iranian threat sooner rather than later. More stalling will only make the job harder and the US will be blamed no matter what happens.
War sucks but it sure beats Armageddon.
POLITICS: The inherently dirty business of politics has gotten dirtier by the week in the past year with the president’s attack/slime machine in overgear and Republicans engage in internecine warfare which only serves to furnish campaign fodder for Obama and to enhance the egos of the GOP candidates.
The president’s billion dollar re-election effort, ably-assisted by his mainstream media, has already dismantled Michelle Bachmann, Herman Caine, and Rick Perry and is prepared to destroy whomever is eventually nominated to oppose him. The remaining hopefuls can only bring on greater damage to themselves and to the GOP if they allow the bloodletting to persist.
When the Muslim-tainted Obama resorted to citing Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule as inspirations for class warfare and Obamacare at the National Prayer Breakfast, they had to realize he will stop at nothing in order to get the opportunity for four more years to drag the nation into oblivion. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12461.)
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wisdom from the FLOTUS
Wisdom from the FLOTUS
Over the years, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama has often been gracious enough to express her heartfelt opinions.
From her racially-charged senior thesis at Princeton University in which she conceded feeling uncomfortable being black in a white society to her admission of never having felt any pride in her country, our First Lady has always been forthcoming and has exemplified an incisive awareness of her beloved United States of America.
Uninformed, mean-spirited critics of Mrs. Obama can launch vicious attacks on her all they want but they only display their total lack of couth and incredible ignorance when they call her names and disparage her many accomplishments, fashion sense, personal attributes, and keen knowledge.
After all, didn’t she–on national television, no less–just persuade Jay Leno to munch his first apple in 28 years!
And, was Mamie Eisenhower ever denigrated as a mooch? Was Jackie Kennedy ever described as class-less? Was Lady Bird Johnson ever castigated for wearing a purple dress to a state dinner? Was Laura Bush ever criticized for using Air Force One as her valet service? Were any other First Ladies in the last century derided merely for wanting to be involved in affairs of state?
Okay, Democrats Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalynn Carter, and Hillary Clinton were but they were Democrat exceptions. However, attacks on Michelle are clear evidence of that racism she alluded to at Princeton.
And, the uncouth, racist meanness persists.
Dastardly accusations that Michelle Obama is a spendthrift on taxpayer money simply because she likes to vacation, claims that she is a hypocrite for advocating for better nutrition and against childhood obesity while she scarfs down grossly-fattening foods, and allegations she lies and doesn’t know what she’s talking about are absolutely unacceptable!
Then came all those preposterous lies about Michelle’s prejudices and ambitions in Jodi Kantor’s new book The Obamas, all fabrications that ”upset” her, even though she didn’t read the book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12411.)
Over the years, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama has often been gracious enough to express her heartfelt opinions.
From her racially-charged senior thesis at Princeton University in which she conceded feeling uncomfortable being black in a white society to her admission of never having felt any pride in her country, our First Lady has always been forthcoming and has exemplified an incisive awareness of her beloved United States of America.
Uninformed, mean-spirited critics of Mrs. Obama can launch vicious attacks on her all they want but they only display their total lack of couth and incredible ignorance when they call her names and disparage her many accomplishments, fashion sense, personal attributes, and keen knowledge.
After all, didn’t she–on national television, no less–just persuade Jay Leno to munch his first apple in 28 years!
And, was Mamie Eisenhower ever denigrated as a mooch? Was Jackie Kennedy ever described as class-less? Was Lady Bird Johnson ever castigated for wearing a purple dress to a state dinner? Was Laura Bush ever criticized for using Air Force One as her valet service? Were any other First Ladies in the last century derided merely for wanting to be involved in affairs of state?
Okay, Democrats Edith Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosalynn Carter, and Hillary Clinton were but they were Democrat exceptions. However, attacks on Michelle are clear evidence of that racism she alluded to at Princeton.
And, the uncouth, racist meanness persists.
Dastardly accusations that Michelle Obama is a spendthrift on taxpayer money simply because she likes to vacation, claims that she is a hypocrite for advocating for better nutrition and against childhood obesity while she scarfs down grossly-fattening foods, and allegations she lies and doesn’t know what she’s talking about are absolutely unacceptable!
Then came all those preposterous lies about Michelle’s prejudices and ambitions in Jodi Kantor’s new book The Obamas, all fabrications that ”upset” her, even though she didn’t read the book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12411.)
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Cinnamon, Sex, and Sexism in Society
Cinnamon, Sex, and Sexism in Society
Cinnamon has been popular for four thousand years and sex even longer but both have taken on new applications in America’s schools and society.
The “cinnamon challenge” now supplements “planking” as a dumb new student fad, teachers having sex with students now supplements their salaries, and courts show that sexism is alive and well.
Heretofore, cinnamon had been used primarily as a diet aid and as a flavorful spice for buns and other desserts until kids discovered that snorting a teaspoon of it could be fun, if you consider gagging, coughing, and vomiting fun.
New Haven’s Clinton Avenue School Principal Carmen Ana Rodriquez must enjoy watching fun things since she permitted a student to engage in the dangerous challenge in her cafeteria. Trying to swallow a load of powdered cinnamon can result in damage to the lungs when it is accidentally inhaled.
It’s not known whether the student–probably a boy–suffered respiratory difficulties as a result but Rodriquez was turned in and placed on paid administrative leave.
The damage caused to students by teachers seducing them can also be irreparable, not that some teachers are discouraged by that fact.
Three examples in just the last week: A Los Angeles teacher has been charged with molesting some 23 kids, another California teacher molested a 7 year old and recorded the molestation on his cellphone, a Reno teacher admitted to commiting a variety of sex acts on seven students and virtually got away with it.
If nothing else, unmarried Miramonte Elementary School teacher Mark Berndt, 61, must be given credit for his perverted perseverance and creativity. Arrested and held on $ 2.3 million bail for molesting 23 girls and boys ages 6-10, he was charged with committing lewd acts after a film processor showed authorities 40 disturbing pictures.
The photos depicted Berndt with his arm around blindfolded kids whose mouths were taped or had his hand over them, some children with giant cockroaches on their faces, some girls were being fed what apparently was sperm on cookies.
Almost 400 additional pictures of children were found after a search of Berndt’s home and classroom as well as an adult sexual bondage DVD. Los Angeles Unified School Dirtrict Superintendent John Deasy said he was “sickened and horrified by the behavior of Mark Berndt.”
What’s almost more sickening and horrifying . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12404.)
Cinnamon has been popular for four thousand years and sex even longer but both have taken on new applications in America’s schools and society.
The “cinnamon challenge” now supplements “planking” as a dumb new student fad, teachers having sex with students now supplements their salaries, and courts show that sexism is alive and well.
Heretofore, cinnamon had been used primarily as a diet aid and as a flavorful spice for buns and other desserts until kids discovered that snorting a teaspoon of it could be fun, if you consider gagging, coughing, and vomiting fun.
New Haven’s Clinton Avenue School Principal Carmen Ana Rodriquez must enjoy watching fun things since she permitted a student to engage in the dangerous challenge in her cafeteria. Trying to swallow a load of powdered cinnamon can result in damage to the lungs when it is accidentally inhaled.
It’s not known whether the student–probably a boy–suffered respiratory difficulties as a result but Rodriquez was turned in and placed on paid administrative leave.
The damage caused to students by teachers seducing them can also be irreparable, not that some teachers are discouraged by that fact.
Three examples in just the last week: A Los Angeles teacher has been charged with molesting some 23 kids, another California teacher molested a 7 year old and recorded the molestation on his cellphone, a Reno teacher admitted to commiting a variety of sex acts on seven students and virtually got away with it.
If nothing else, unmarried Miramonte Elementary School teacher Mark Berndt, 61, must be given credit for his perverted perseverance and creativity. Arrested and held on $ 2.3 million bail for molesting 23 girls and boys ages 6-10, he was charged with committing lewd acts after a film processor showed authorities 40 disturbing pictures.
The photos depicted Berndt with his arm around blindfolded kids whose mouths were taped or had his hand over them, some children with giant cockroaches on their faces, some girls were being fed what apparently was sperm on cookies.
Almost 400 additional pictures of children were found after a search of Berndt’s home and classroom as well as an adult sexual bondage DVD. Los Angeles Unified School Dirtrict Superintendent John Deasy said he was “sickened and horrified by the behavior of Mark Berndt.”
What’s almost more sickening and horrifying . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12404.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)